Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Trunk Road (Inverness to Invergordon)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed his inquiry into the alternative routings of the trunk road from Inverness to Invergordon: and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Preliminary assessment of these studies suggests that a route crossing the Beauly Firth and running through the Black Isle to Dingwall and Invergordon merits further consideration. I am, therefore, proposing to invite the Jack Holmes Group, which was responsible for earlier proposals relating to development in this area, to make an urgent appraisal of the planning implications of such a route. In carrying out this task the Group would undertake consultations with the planning authorities concerned.
When I receive the Group's report I intend to consult the highway authorities, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, organisations representing agricultural interests, and other interested bodies, before publishing a proposed route.

Mr. Maclennan: This is a most welcome Answer; and, in view of the different views which have been expressed, my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on seeking a further objective study. Will the new study be able to take into consideration the advantages of crossing the Dornoch Firth as well?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that anything will be outside the remit of the new study, but we want as far as possible to concentrate its consideration on fairly realistic proposals. This is an important road and is an indication of the importance of this part of the country.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I started my correspondence with him on this question a year ago. I, too, am concerned about the Dornoch Firth. Will he publish an assessment of the savings which could accrue from a reduction in maintenance of 20 to 30 miles of trunk road as against the cost of bridges and causeways?

Mr. Ross: All these matters will be taken into account.

Witnesses (Expense Allowances)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase the expense allowances of witnesses summoned to attend courts in Scotland.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): This is not a matter for which my right hon. Friend has any responsibility. I understand, however, that the loss of earnings allowance payable to witnesses appearing in the High Court of Justiciary and in criminal cases in the Sheriff Court was increased on 2nd March, 1970, and that the allowances for travelling expenses and subsistence are currently under review by the Treasury. In civil cases the amount of expenses payable to witnesses appearing in the Court of Session and the Sheriff Court is regulated by Act of Sederunt.

Mr. Maclennan: These welcome increases are timely. Is there any continuing machinery for review of these expenses? Does my hon. Friend make representations to the Treasury about this?

Mr. Buchan: The amounts payable to witnesses in the High Court and the Sheriff Court are fixed administratively by the Treasury. In Burgh and Justices' Courts the amounts are a matter for the discretion of the Court.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Joint Under-Secretary to say that he had no responsibility for this Question. If so, how did it get past the


Table? I thought that a matter had to be the responsibility of a Minister before a Question could appear on the Order Paper.

Disabled Persons (Cars)

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will undertake a review of the arrangements for grants for converting privately-owned cars for the disabled so that persons without arms and who have passed the driving test may qualify for grant.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): My Department is reviewing the criteria for assessing eligibility for invalid transport in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Security, and the needs of persons without arms are being considered among others.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I am almost overwhelmed by that Answer, which was a more encouraging Answer than I had expected. Will the Joint Under-Secretary bear in mind that, so far as is known, there are only three cases other than the case of my constituent, Mr. Kenneth Aitkenhead, in the country and that one of those, who lives south of the Border, has already been given a grant of £90 towards the conversion of his own vehicle?

Mr. Millan: I agree that there is only a small number of cases, although it is rather higher than the hon. Lady indicated. This category has to be considered in relation to a number of other deserving categories.

Glasgow Airport

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what objections have been lodged, on what grounds and by whom, against the proposal of Glasgow Airport Authority to lengthen its main runway.

Mr. Ross: The application has not yet been advertised, but I have already received ten representations about the proposed runway extension. With permission I will circulate details of these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that with the increasing weight, capacity and speed of the modern air-

liner, urgency in this matter is essential for the continued prosperity of Abbots-inch Airport? Will he say what sort of difficulties are now holding up the necessary lengthening of the runway?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are certain difficulties about this, to do with the feelings of the people in the area, and even wider considerations which go beyond the area of the local planning authority. No decision has yet been made whether a public inquiry will be necessary, but these matters are part of the machinery for a development of this kind.

Following is the information:

Objector and Grounds of Objection
British Airports Authority:
Implications for airport policy in Scotland.
Prestwick Airport Development Association:
Possible effects on Prestwick's transatlantic traffic.
Extension of noise and air pollution from large aircraft at Abbotsinch and possible crash hazards.
Adverse effects on large built-up area.
Suitability of Prestwick to operate services which would require a runway extension at Abbotsinch.
Johnstone Town Council:
Increased noise, particularly at night and in the early morning; effects on television reception.
Bearsden Town Council:
Increased noise.
Mr. Gordon Munro, Paisley:
Increase noise over built-up areas.
Mr. Rowand, Candrens Farm, Paisley:
Increased noise.
John Pinkerton Ltd., Blackstoun, Paisley:
Effects of noise on turkey farming.
Mr. E. Snodgrass, Milngavie:
Increased noise.
Mr. James A. Douglas, Paisley:
Increased noise.
Mr. P. R. Parker, Linwood, Paisley:
Crash hazard at Rootes factory, Linwood.

Motorways and Dual Carriageways

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of motorways and dual carriageways, respectively, were in operation in Scotland at the end of 1969; and how many are expected to be in use by the end of 1970.

Mr. Ross: Fifty-two miles of motorway and 142 miles of dual-carriageway all-purpose trunk roads were in use in


Scotland at the end of 1969. By the end of 1970, providing contracts are completed on schedule, these figures should rise to 62 miles and 150 miles respectively.

Mr. Rankin: While the dual-carriageway position seems to be reasonable, as far as I can observe, am I right in thinking that we are lagging far behind with regard to motorways, particularly with the motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh which is taking a very long time indeed, much longer than many of us had expected?

Mr. Ross: The reason why it has taken a long time is that it was a long time before it was started.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there is great disquiet in Greenock and Gourock about his refusal to extend the M8 motorway to Greenock, as originally planned? Does he not think it necessary to extend this motorway in view of the importance of the container terminal?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about two things. He is overestimating the disquiet. He talked about "as originally planned." That is quite wrong, and if he goes back to a document produced by his own Party when they formed the Government in 1963, he will find that it was a motorway and all-purpose dual carriageway.

Sugar Beet Crop

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total return to farmers in Scotland for the 1969 sugar beet crop; and what is the estimated total return for the 1970 crop on the contracted acreage to be planted this season.

Mr. Buchan: Including the transport subvention, farmers in Scotland received £1,110,237 for the 12,392 acres of sugar beet they grew in 1969. No realistic estimate of the likely return for the 1970 crop is possible.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there will be an increase this year and that if the Government persist in closing the Cupar factory they do away with a large cash crop for the Scottish farming industry?

Mr. Buchan: On the first point, that may be so. It is still early to make that kind of prediction. On the second point, the hon. Member had perhaps better wait and see what is forthcoming this afternoon, when the Price Review is announced.

Forth Road Bridge (Tolls)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the increase of tolls at the Forth Road Bridge has had on the number of commercial vehicles using the bridge; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon): Since the new tolls were introduced the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board has recorded vehicles according to the toll paid, and therefore no figures are available showing changes in the use of the bridge by commercial vehicles alone.

Sir J. Gilmour: Am I right in saying that the total revenue indicates that the increase in tolls has not decreased the number of commercial vehicles using the bridge?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am not able to confirm that, but present indications are that the amount of traffic for the year ended 31st May, 1970, while still above that for the preceding 12 months, may be about 5 per cent. less than the forecast. This remains to be seen.

British Standard Time

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received this winter regarding British Standard Time; and when he expects to complete his review of this experiment.

Mr. Buchan: Since 19th June, 1969, when the Government announced their decision to continue with the British Standard Time experiment and to review its effects on the basis of two winters' experience, my right hon. Friend has received representations against the experiment from three local authorities, six organisations and seven individuals. I am unable to say at this stage when the review will be completed, but the matter will be brought before Parliament in good time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman be more specific and say when the results of the review will be announced? Is he aware that in the construction industry B.S.T. has led to an increase in costs and a fall in productivity? Will he bear in mind the interests and representations of this industry in reaching a decision?

Mr. Buchan: We will bear in mind the interests and representations of all industries. There are other factors which the hon. Member might sometimes like to keep in mind, including accident figures, for example. He will be pleased to know that the number of accidents to children has fallen by 9 per cent. in the four relevant hours compared with last year.

Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there has been a considerable change in public attitudes to British Standard Time since it has become apparent that the wilder allegations made from the Opposition benches are quite unfounded? Is he aware that the other day Aberdeenshire County Council, reversing an earlier decision, voted for the retention of the present arrangements?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of both those points. I only wish that the Opposition Front Bench were equally aware of them.

Road Transport Costs

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the importance of road transport to development in Scotland as outlined in Cmnd. Paper No. 2864, "The Scottish Economy 1965 to 1968", he will conduct an inquiry into the effect on economic development of rising road transport costs.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that the costs of road haulage firms have risen considerably since 1964, in some cases by as much as 70 per cent., particularly since 1st March this year when certain Sections of the Transport Act came into effect? Is he aware that since then costs have risen still further, particularly in the remoter areas of the Highlands and the north-east of Scotland? How can that possibly be in the interests of development?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's usual inaccuracy about figures, I should not like to accept those that he has given. I can say on behalf of Scotland that it is a great mistake to exaggerate the burden of transport costs on our country. The Toothill Committtee in 1960–61 found nothing in its inquiry to support the view that transport costs are a significant additional burden on manufacturing industry in Scotland. This is still true of transport if all costs are taken into account. It must be remembered that costs are incurred not only on wages but also on measures to secure better road safety.

Mr. Grimond: Can the hon. Gentleman say how far the estimated increase in costs has been taken into account in assessing the value of roll-on, roll-off ferries, and so forth?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: That, I hope, will be raised in a later Question.

Road Casualties (Effect of Alcohol)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were killed or seriously injured on the roads in Scotland as a direct consequence of the consumption of alcohol in each of the last five years; and what approaches have been made to him by the Scottish brewers to help finance research on this problem.

Mr. Buchan: The information requested in the first part of the Question is not available. The answer to the second part is, "None".

Mr. Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Bruce Campbell: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Gentlemen that points of order cut out someone's Questions.

Mr. Campbell: rose—

Mr. Dalyell: Sit own.

Mr. Campbell: Does the House have to listen to the person who so recently publicly insulted and attacked Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the Royal Family?

Mr. Speaker: That was a bogus point of order.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the total number of deaths on the road in Scotland in the last five years were nearly 4,000, including 890 in the last year? Is he further aware that the Scottish and Newcastle Breweries' profit last year was nearly £18 million? How long will Youngers and other people sit on their bank books while this carnage on the road goes on?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of these terrible figures. As regards the latter part of the question, perhaps the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is in a better position to answer.

Mr. Younger: On a point of order. May I please make it clear to the House, since an imputation has been made against me, that I have no connection in any business sense at all with these people.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is regrettable that the comment was made.

Mr. Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not complaining about the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Ayr—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order. An accusation has been made against me by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and I wish to refute it. I never suggested that he had an interest. I asked how long the Youngers and others were going to sit on their bank books while this murder on the road continued.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There was no personal allegation in what the hon. Member for Fife, West said.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: On a point of order. It was not the remark of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but the subsequent remark of the Joint Under-Secretary, coming immediately after it, which was offensive, and I ask the Joint Under-Secretary to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: I have endeavoured to convey that to the House, and the Joint Under-Secretary has been attempting to rise to do so.

Mr. Buchan: As the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) says that, I am prepared to accept it and to withdraw my remark.

Crime and Alcohol

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being done into the part played by consumption of alcohol in crimes of violence; and what approaches have been made to him by the Scottish distillers and brewers to help finance such research.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being conducted by his Department into the relationship of the consumption of alcohol as a contributory factor in the commission of crimes and offences including crimes of violence.

Mr. Buchan: Several criminological studies, current and prospective, in Scotland will take the effects of alcohol into account. There is an established and significant link betwen intoxication and crimes of violence and I doubt if this by itself would be a useful area of research. I do not know of any initiative by brewers or distillers in this field.

Mr. Hamilton: We are all glad that there was a reduction in crimes of violence in 1969 compared with 1968. However, is my hon. Friend aware that last year the profits of the Distillers Company Ltd. were nearly £53 million? Does he not think that that company would show some sense of social responsibility if it devoted a little of that profit to research into this problem?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, I think that all of us who are involved in this matter know that there is a direct link between the two. I cannot speak about the moral responsibility of others, but I am aware of the strong link between the consumption of alcohol in our cities and the incidence of violence.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on teachers' salaries.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will


make a statement on the progress of salary negotiations with the teachers.

Mr. Millan: I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given on 10th March to Questions by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown).—[Vol. 797, c. 278 and 283.]

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Member aware that the financial gap separating the two sides is now small? Does he accept the need to encourage a situation in which negotiations may be resumed and damaging strikes called off?

Mr. Millan: There is another meeting of the Scottish Teachers' Salary Committee on Friday of this week.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member described the last offer from the employers as very fair. Is he aware that if it were to go through it would involve some assistant technical masters in secondary schools being paid more than the heads of their departments? Does he think that that is either fair or sensible? How does he justify a 10 per cent. increase to many teachers who happen not to be in short supply?

Mr. Millan: The increases to technical and other practical and aesthetic teachers are well above the average of 15 per cent. involved in the management side's offer. If there were any particular anomaly, that would be a matter to be discussed, but I am not aware of the anomaly which the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in its weekly journal the Educational Institute is talking of the virtues of coercing the Government? Will my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend ensure that it is negotiation on a reasonable basis and that there is no giving way to coercion?

Mr. Millan: I can give my hon. Friend a full assurance about that.

Assaults on Police

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assaults on police officers on duty took place in 1969.

Mr. Buchan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given on 4th March to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown.)—[Vol. 797, c. 117–8.]

Mr. MacArthur: Is the hon. Member aware that there were 357 assaults on police officers in the last three years, that the rate of assault doubled over the last six years, and that there is a wide and growing public concern about the safety of individual police officers on duty?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, I am aware of all those things. I am sure that the hon. Member will take a certain satisfaction, as I have, from the fact that last year there was a decrease in assaults on the police and in crimes of violence generally in Scotland.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend give a breakdown of the figure to show how many of the assaults were by drunken assailants?

Mr. Buchan: It would be difficult to give a statistical breakdown of that kind. One hopes that the research in which we are taking part will assist in that direction. The two are connected and in general terms a number of assaults can be associated with alcohol.

Health Service in Scotland

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the proposals for the future organisation of the Health Service in Scotland; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend promised in the Green Paper that decisions on the structure of the health services would not be taken until the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government had been considered, and that Report is still under consideration.

Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Member bear in mind the need to keep hospital services local, particularly for long-stay geriatric patients? Will he resist the temptation to concentrate on rather remote regional centres?

Mr. Millan: That is a rather different question. In considering reorganisation we shall want to take into account the


need to involve the local community in hospital and other health services.

Douglas-Ewart, High School (Rebuilding)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the second phase of the building programme at the Douglas-Ewart High School, Newton Stewart, will be completed.

Mr. Millan: I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 19th January about this project.—[Vol. 794, c. 71.]

Mr. Brewis: How can this school be ready to be the only secondary school in the area and ready for the raising of the school-leaving age in 1972 if its urgent building programme is being delayed by the hon. Member's Department?

Mr. Millan: It is not being delayed; we have not received proposals from the authority. In any case, the first phase together with the existing buildings will provide sufficient places for the raising of the school-leaving age.

Murders

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of murders committed in Scotland in 1969.

Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) on 10th March. —[Vol. 797, c. 282.]

Mr. Campbell: Will the Secretary of State now consider a review of the anomalous situation that a prison sentence may be served for crimes other than murder for longer than the effective life sentence for murder?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should know from his own experience in the Scottish Office that that is not new. I thought that he would welcome the fact that the figures for which he asked show a reduction from 41 murders made known to the police in 1968 to 30 in 1969. Of course that is too high and we must do everything to ensure that it comes down.

Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are many hon. Members who feel that it is essential to maintain

a flexible attitude to the length of life sentences in view of the considerable success in releasing people after what some would regard as a short sentence? Does not the fact that they do not get into trouble justify maintaining this flexible position?

Mr. Ross: Yes, but that is an entirely different question.

Council Tenants (Home-Ownership)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage council tenants who can afford it to become owners of houses.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not consider it necessary to take measures specifically directed towards council house tenants, but we introduced the option mortgage scheme and the associated mortgage guarantee scheme, which operate in conjunction with loans by local authorities as well as loans by building societies,  order to help those of moderate means to buy their own houses.

Mr. Campbell: But if the Government are encouraging home ownership, will not the Secretary of State change his attitude to authorising in appropriate circumstances the sale of council houses to sitting tenants where the full price is to be paid and it is already a family's home?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: We have debated this subject many times. As long as there is a housing need in any area, the Secretary of State will decline to give his consent to the sale of council houses. However, he will encourage a family to move from a council house into an owner occupied house by various measures, some of which may be mentioned later this afternoon.

New Houses

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is at the latest convenient date the number of new houses completed in Scotland since October 1964; and what was the number completed in the same period prior to that date.

Mr. Ross: From the beginning of October, 1964, to the end of January. 1970, 210,694 houses were completed


in Scotland, as against 152,231 in the same length of time before October, 1964.

Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this increase in house building will be seen as a positive step towards increasing the number of new dwellings in Scotland? Has he noticed that, despite the efforts of the Opposition to make party political propaganda out of house building, they have not yet announced their target in the event of their being returned to office? Would he say whether that was caution or deceit?

Mr. Ross: There may be a little of both. I am more interested in the Opposition's attitude to their own performance in the past when in 1953 they reached 39,000 houses, a figure which by 1962 had gone down to 26,000. That was a scandalous performance.

Mr. Younger: Does the Secretary of State recall the promise—which he made in order to get votes in 1964—to build 50,000 houses by 1970? Can he tell us why the Prime Minister said that no circumstances, however adverse, would deter him from achieving that target?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I remember my words very well. I told the electorate exactly how badly the Opposition had done. We set ourselves the target of trying to reach—it was a target, not a promise—50,000 houses. Last year, we reached 43,000. We had 2,100 houses completed but held up because of the Ronan Point Inquiry. When hon. Members opposite compare that with their efforts, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Did I hear the Secretary of State aright? Did he indicate that that was not part of either a lightly-given promise or a pledge?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we said that we should do our best to reach that target, and we have done pretty well.

Penal Institutions

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum spent on capital improvements and new developments in Scottish penal institutions since 1965; and what was the sum spent in the periods 1951–54, 1955–59 and 1960 to 1964.

Mr. Buchan: The total sum spent on capital improvements and new developments in Scottish penal establishments from the beginning of the financial year 1965–66 to 28th February, 1970 was £4,358,000; the corresponding figures for the financial years 1951–52 to 1954–55, 1955–56 to 1959–60 and 1960–61 to 1964–65 were £455,000, £575,000 and £2,232,000 respectively.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that the money spent on such institutions has improved the conditions of those who work in the prison service? Does he agree that hon. Gentlemen opposite ignored this aspect of the penal system during their term of office?

Mr. Buchan: My answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes". One of the great difficulties I have had has been precisely because of the neglect to create penal institutions during the 1950s. I am very pleased to see that at least right hon. Members who sit on the Front Bench opposite, including their Leader, are now reversing their trend. We have been spending about eight times as much on penal institutions in Scotland as was spent in the mid-1950s. by the party opposite.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman set these figures against, first, the regrettable increase in the crime figures; second, the constant rise in prison overcrowding; and, third, the unending rise in building costs under the present Government?

Mr. Buchan: I have taken all the factors into consideration. The hon. Gentleman might remember that in the last five years in office of the party opposite there was a steeply rising trend in the crime rate. The trend in Scotland now is downwards. During that period of neglect by the party opposite it might have been possible to cope with the situation much more easily than we can now.

Agriculture (Transport Act)

26. Mr. Monro: asked the secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the agricultural industry regarding the implementation of the Transport Act; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend has received representations about drivers' hours which he has forwarded to my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport. The Drivers Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Exemption) Regulations 1970 made by my right hon. Friend include exemptions for the haulage of livestock and milk and for other agricultural produce at harvest time.

Mr. Monro: Despite that, does not the hon. Gentleman foresee chaos at many auction markets this summer and autumn when it becomes impossible to remove sheep and cattle from pens because of the drivers' hours? Has the hon. Gentleman considered the damage it will cause to the sale and even the possible cruelty to the livestock?

Mr. Buchan: Hon. Members opposite have a great habit of predicting doom before something has started. The regulations came into force on 1st March. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might wait and see how they operate first. Road safety and the interests of the drivers, which are what the regulations are about, are things to which hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to pay little attention. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite see how the regulations work, and let us have their support for a worth-while social and humane experiment.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a three-hour meeting I had last week with West Lothian farmers genuine concern was expressed about what is happening at the Lanark market? This is a matter that the Department will have to examine, because men and animals are being kept waiting.

Mr. Buchan: Of course, we are looking at this very closely. [An HON. MEMBER: "Complacency."] It is nothing to do with complacency. I am saying that we should examine the situation and keep our eye on it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has said that for the first three months assistance would be given by the enforcement staff to help make sure that the regulations worked smoothly.

Mr. Stodart: Is not one of the things that are perplexing the Government very much the soaring costs that we shall hear about later? Will not the regulations aggravate them considerably? Is the

Minister to sit twiddling his thumbs and waiting to see how things work out without trying to discover what the difficulties are?

Mr. Buchan: Members of the party opposite are the last people to talk about others twiddling their thumbs. We are looking at the problem. On the question of costs, first, the hon. Gentleman exaggerates; second, these are the kinds of thing we take into consideration in the Price Review announcements, for which the hon. Gentleman will not have very long to wait.

Convicted Murderers

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state for each prisoner convicted of murder at any time and released in the last five years the actual period of imprisonment served.

Mr. Ross: The periods served by the seven men concerned were 9 years, 7 years 5 months, 9 years 6 months, 9 years 3 months, 10 years, 9 years, and 8 years 5 months.
Another man, who had earlier been released and subsequently recalled had, when again released, served altogether 14 years and 8 months.

Mr. Monro: Is not there something very wrong with the present situation in which the majority of murderers are serving a much shorter sentence than other criminals who have been sentenced for less serious crimes?

Mr. Ross: I should not like to make a rough-and-ready calculation whether the hon. Gentleman is right. He must know that this is not a new factor. If he would like to put down a Question I will give him the Answer for the period 1953–1964, and if he works out an average for that period he will probably discover that I have been a little less inclined to release murderers than were his right hon. Friends.

Mr. Lawson: I was about to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would give us any idea about what happened in the five-year period before the five years mentioned here.

Mr. Ross: I do not want to do that, because this is not a numbers game which we can play. It is much more serious than that, and I hope that it will be


taken much more seriously. But hon. Gentlemen who go into these matters should consider exactly what has been the practice over a long time and how each case is looked at as an individual case.

Mr. Wylie: Is not the new factor that Parliament has decided permanently to abolish the death penalty for murder? That being the case, would the right hon. Gentleman consider—I put it no higher—broadening the remits of Lord Thomson's Committee on Criminal Procedure to see whether a change should be made in the life sentence system?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that it is quite as easy as that. In setting up a committee for a particular purpose one selects the people for that purpose. It is not necessarily the case that the same committee should consider a wider matter I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to appreciate that.

University Premises (Police Powers)

Mr. Mackintosh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the dubiety of the present law, he will take steps to provide that the police in Scotland are enabled to enter university premises and to deal with disorders in the traditional manner in Scotland by which students are treated in the same way as any other members of the public.

Mr. Buchan: Students are treated in law in the same way as any other members of the public and I do not believe that any change in the law is needed.

Mr. Mackintosh: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would not he accept that the recent entry by Edinburgh students into premises in Buccleugh Place, where they prevented people working, opened files and so on, might well have constituted a breach of the peace, and that had the police operated as the university authorities requested the subsequent clash between students and the university would never have taken place?

Mr. Buchan: There is some doubt as to the extent to which the authorities or others wanted intervention to take place. In the more recent incident affecting Old

Quad in Edinburgh the police showed that they were willing to intervene and did so when they were satisfied that their presence was required.

Mr. Wylie: Is not the position that there is no doubt about the Scottish law on breach of the peace, which is adequate to meet this problem? Does not the intervention to which the hon. Gentleman referred show that it can effectively and quietly be dealt with by the police, both to their credit and to that of the university authorities?

Mr. Buchan: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Health Centre, Gorbals

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to reduce the delay in providing a health centre in Gorbals, Glasgow.

Mr. Millan: I regret that the provision of the Gorbals health centre has unavoidably been delayed, mainly owing to site difficulties which have only recently been resolved. The preparation of sketch plans is now in hand and potential users will be consulted about them as soon as possible.

Mr. McElhone: While I pay tribute to the Government's health centre programme in Scotland, does not my hon. Friend agree that the delay is quite shocking, especially as the site was made available in June, 1966? Does he not also agree that because of redevelopment many doctors are leaving the Gorbals area, making it very difficult for many of my constituents, especially old-age pensioners, to reach their doctors? Will he take immediate action to get the project started?

Mr. Millan: There has been a series of delays in this matter. I regret them very much. But not all of them are the Government's responsibility. Many of them have arisen from problems of redevelopment, for which no blame attaches to anyone. For example, it is only within the past few days that we have been informed by the Corporation that we shall have an additional strip of land available, which will mean a change of plan, but which we think at the end of the day will give us a rather better final solution. Certainly, I want work


on the health centre to be pressed ahead as quickly as possible.

Dr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the provision of health centres in general will not be jeopardised by the delay with this centre, and that the programme envisaged for health centre development, which is essential in Glasgow and in Scotland, will go ahead?

Mr. Millan: Certainly the programme is going ahead. The progress is very good indeed, as I indicated recently in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). Special problems have arisen in Glasgow, largely out of the general programme for the redevelopment areas.

Glasgow House Building Programme

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent meeting between the Minister of State and Glasgow Corporation on the question of its house building programme.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: My noble Friend discussed with the Corporation means of providing for Glasgow's housing needs. A joint working party of officials of the Corporation and of my Department is now following up this discussion in detail. When the Working Party has made progress, which I hope will be soon, my noble Friend will have further discussions with the Corporation.

Mr. McElhone: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is criminal to cut back the housing programme in Glasgow, which has the worst housing situation in Western Europe? Does not he also agree that to start only 1,311 houses last year, instead of 4,500, indicates that the Tories in Glasgow are following the policy of the Tories in Westminster, which is against council house building?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My answer to both parts of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir". Two excuses for this were offered by the Conservatives in Glasgow. One was that our indicative cost procedure had slowed down the programme. In 1968, 1,428 houses were approved before the indicative cost procedure began. In 1969, when that procedure began, the number approved was

4,199. A threefold increase can hardly be called an administrative blocking. The other excuse is housing finance. In 1971–72 twice as much money will be spent on housing in Scotland as was spent in 1963–64.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, on 19th November, in answer to a Question by me, he admitted that the cost procedure was causing delays and that there was need for readjustment of housing programmes? Will he and his hon. Friends stop seeking scapegoats for the deficiencies and inaccuracies of their own housing targets?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to the answer I gave. The delays have been very temporary and over one year they made no difference. I will repeat what I said in relation to Glasgow, where there is said to be greatest excuse. In the year before the indicative cost procedures began, 1,428 houses were approved by the Scottish office. In the year after these procedures were begun, 4,199 houses were approved. The hon. Gentleman cannot get out of that.

Disturbances

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the decisions either to bring or not to bring prosecutions in respect of disturbances at Murray-field Rugby Ground, Edinburgh, Links-field Stadium, Aberdeen, and outside factories at East Kilbride and Grangemouth were taken by the Crown Office.

Mr. Buchan: The decision to take no proceedings in connection with the disturbances at East Kilbride was taken by Crown Counsel. All other decisions were taken by the local prosecutors of the districts concerned.

Mr. Stodart: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that outside the East Kilbride factory one policeman was rendered deaf for the rest of his life? In the face of this and of the figures which he gave to me a month ago, can he say why it is so much more difficult to get evidence against disturbers outside factories than, apparently, against students? Should not all offenders be prosecuted, regardless of who they are, when disturbances are created and the police are put into difficulties?

Mr. Buchan: I do not accept the implication of that statement. People are treated according to the law, whether they are students or workers outside factories. A moment ago the suggestion was being made that students were not being prosecuted. This is a matter for the local Procurator Fiscal to decide in the light of all the evidence available.

The Scottish Economy

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper outlining the progress that has been made in strengthening the Scottish economy since 1965.

Mr. Ross: Reports on the substantial progress achieved have been frequently made in debates in the House and in very many other ways. The results achieved in new growth and development speak for themselves—road construction on target with the White Paper objectives, new records set for house completion in each of the last three years, factory building and investment in new industrial plant at record levels and expenditure on fixed capital investment in the public sector up from £266 million in 1963–64 to £454 million in 1968–69.

Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend introduce a White Paper giving those facts, and bringing out the great change in the pattern of employment in Scotland, which has produced more highly paid jobs and greater promotion prospects? Will he also show in the White Paper the demographic changes in Scotland which have led to the misconception of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that 66,000 jobs have been lost, when there has been no such loss?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend's suggestion is worth consideration, but he should bear in mind that most of those facts have been proclaimed in Scotland and that objective observers are increasingly recognising the progress of the Scottish economy generally. Whereas hon. Gentlemen opposite are predicting gloom and doom, everyone else, far from taking that attitude, is optimistic about the progress being made and to be made in Scotland.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: If the economy in Scotland is so good, will the Secretary of State please explain to me why unemployment in Edinburgh has risen?

Mr. Ross: The position of Edinburgh has had constant attention and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the office jobs that will be brought to Edinburgh will improve the situation.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Since the period covered by the Secretary of State's 1965 White Paper ends this year, will not he reconsider his hon. Friend's proposal, because a White Paper which described what happened during the period would be very different from the White Paper with its forecasts and would explain the loss of 67,000 jobs since 1965?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman would only open his eyes and see what is happening in Scotland with housing, schools, hospitals and roads, he would begin to realise just how irrelevant the Opposition are.

Mr. William Hamilton: Has my right hon. Friend considered the possible effects on the Scottish economy of the threatened policy of the Opposition to abolish investment grants and substantially to reduce, if not to abolish, subsidies on council houses?

Mr. Ross: I should face with trembling the disaster of the implementation of such policies, but this is a fairy tale, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no hope of the Opposition ever ruling Scotland.

New Houses (Condensation)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what direction he has given to new town development corporations about condensation in new houses.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend has drawn to their attention the technical publications of the Building Research Station, and indicated the advice that might be given to tenants.

Mr. Dalyell: May I thank my hon. Friends for making available to me during the Easter Recess the excellent film on condensation and how to cope with it for showing in Broxburn, Blackburn, and Bathgate, but does not he agree that it is easier for the Government to take the initiative in the war against condensation in new houses by operating through new town development corporations,


where there is more direct control, rather than through local authorities?

Mr. Dickson Mabon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage the use of this film in their constituencies. Not all, but part of the answer lies in the tenant's understanding of the situation. That is why the new town development corporations in the guidance they give in the tenant's handbook are to be commended, and I hope that that example will be followed by local authorities everywhere.

Minimum Prices Scheme

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has come to any decision on the introduction of the Minimum Prices Scheme and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) on 26th February.—[Vol. 796, c. 411.]

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has the hon. Gentleman yet made a decision about the effective date of the introduction of this scheme? When the Minister of Agriculture sails into calmer waters following the Price Review, will the Minister urge on him the necessity of extending the scheme to cover the whole country as soon as possible?

Mr. Buchan: The order is now being laid. It will be discussed in the House, when there will be an opportunity to comment on it. When it will be discussed is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As regards the United Kingdom scheme, this is primarily a matter on which the initiative rests on the White Fish Authority.

Police Amalgamation

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of police amalgamation in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The programme of police amalgamations which I announced in July, 1966, to reduce the number of small forces and create more efficient and viable units was completed in May, 1969. The programme affected 16 police forces and

reduced their number to five, thus reducing the number of forces in Scotland from 31 to 20.

Mr. Steele: May I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for his timely action on this matter? To what extent has the work of the police become more effective, or is it at the moment too early to say?

Mr. Ross: I do not think there is any doubt that we now have a much more effectively administered, and therefore efficient, police force. When one adds to that the development of the Scottish Crime Squad at Airdrie, one begins to appreciate the extent to which we have lacked because these measures were not undertaken at the right time. They should have been taken 20 years earlier. We lacked the modernised force to cope with modern times.

Tourist Industry, The Clyde

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the growth potential of the tourist industry over the next 10 years in the lower reaches of the Clyde in terms of finance and numbers employed, he will make an estimate of the cost this development will place on local authorities and Government in providing the infrastructure to sustain it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend on Wednesday, 11th March, 1970.—[Vol. 797, c. 316.]

Mr. Galbraith: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman got that information since I have not asked a Question on this matter before today. While appreciating that it is not possible for the hon. Gentleman to be entirely accurate, could he say whether the infrastructure costs would be more or less for tourist development than they would be for the proposed industrial development about which we have been hearing recently?

Dr. Dickon Mabon: If I am in error, I apologise. I feel that it may be the hon. Gentleman who is in error. The fact that the Miles Kelcey Study was published in May, 1968, and was the first phase of the study in the Clyde is very important. The present phase will finish in the spring,


having been begun last spring by Professor Travis. The management committee is under the Lord Provost of Glasgow and we are keen to see the results of this Herriot Watt effort on the West Coast.

Local Authority Houses (Sale)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the prices obtained for the sale of local authority houses compare with the capitalised value of the rent less the capitalised value of the cost of repair.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I do not have this information.

Mr. Galbraith: Is it not distressing that the Secretary of State has not this valuable information? Will the hon. Gentleman try to find it out? Is he aware that my calculations seem to show that it would be a very good thing for the local authorities financially if they were to sell these houses? They would get more for them in that way than they are now getting from rents when one takes off the cost of repairs. Would this not enable local authorities to build more houses for people who need them?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: No, Sir. Although we do not have information about indivividual transactions, there is no obligation on local authorities to tell us. It is extremely unlikely that by selling older houses one would be able to cover the cost of new houses. The monetary gain to the local authority would be questionable. What is no in question is the housing need, which is very important.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the discussions which the Minister of State has had with local authority associations on local government reorganisation.

Mr. Ross: At this stage I can say only that there was a very useful exchange of views.

Mr. Doig: Would my right hon. Friend say whether any of these local authorities have expressed the opinion that they should reform the financial set-up, by abolishing altogether the system of rates and supplanting that part of the account

financed by local authorities by a system of 100 per cent. financing of local authorities by the Government?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend knows that our discussions with local authorities have been confidential.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Could the Secretary of State say whether the local authority associations said that they would like to take part in the Governments' current examination of a reformed financial structure?

Mr. Ross: No, I do not think that I should go into the discussions. We should await the White Paper.

Water Shortage

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken by his Department to prevent the recurrence of water shortage in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The statutory duty to provide adequate supplies lies with regional water boards, but my Department maintains close liaison with them to ensure that timely action is taken. Since last summer expenditure amounting to some £650,000 has been authorised to prevent the recurrence of local shortages.

Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will be glad to hear that these steps have been taken, but would he keep a close watch on the increase in charges, sometimes very high, which has taken place as a result of this amalgamation?

Mr. Ross: Yes. We cannot be in a position to deal with emergencies without spending money, but I take my hon. Friend's point that we must try to keep the matter in balance.

Local Authority Housing Subsidies)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost to central Government of subsidies to local authority housing in Scotland in the financial year 1963–64, and the comparable figure in the last financial year and what his represented as an average subsidy for each council house in these years.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: For all subsidised houses, whenever built £14·7 million or £24 per house in 1963–64 and


£21·5 million or £30 per house in 1968–69. For houses completed in 1963–64 and 1968–69 the subsidies were approximately £38 and £105 per house respectively.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that the Treasury in a Written Reply on 4th March estimated that the average support given to owner-occupiers in Scotland in the form of tax relief on mortgages and the option mortgage scheme worked out at £43 10s. per house? Does this not put into perspective the distorted picture put about by certain people that there is only one group of house occupiers in Scotland who receive help from the State?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I accept all that the Treasury offers. In 1963–64 the total figure of housing expenditure was £120 million. For the current financial year it is £226 million and for the next financial year £230 million; and for 1971–72 it is estimated that it will be £238 million, which is a doubling since 1963.

Police Force (Cost)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of manning and equipping the police force in Scotland in 1969; and what was the comparable figure in 1964.

Mr. Buchan: The total cost of manning and equipping the police force in Scotland (including capital expenditure) during the years ended 15th May, 1964 and 15th May, 1969 was £17·1 million and £25·9 million respectively.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that this quite notable increase does a good deal to explain the fact that the rising tide of violence has been checked and rolled back for the first time this year in Scotland? With crimes against the person in Glasgow having dropped this year by 10·5 per cent., does this not show what can be achieved by police work and social work agencies when they get the necessary resources and when the Government give high priority to the problem?

Mr. Buchan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is true that we are beginning to see the results of some of the resources being put into the fight for law and order and against crime.

Mr. MacArthur: Could the hon. Gentleman say by how much the strength of the police force in Scotland has fallen below establishment?

Mr. Buchan: I am afraid that I cannot answer that Question off the cuff, but we have about 300 more police than we had in 1964 and police manpower is about 1,000 more than in 1964.

Housing Needs

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what year he estimates there will be a sufficiency of houses of satisfactory standard to meet the needs of the population of Scotland on the basis of the current rate of house-building and the current net emigration figures.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: A national estimate on the basis suggested would be of little value, because the problems to be dealt with vary greatly from area to area.

Earl of Dalkeith: Could the hon. Gentleman please give an assurance that he will press ahead with house building a good deal faster than has occurred up to now, and will he try to forget that a General Election is coming and get on with the job of building houses?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Government have never wavered in their anxiety to try to build more houses in Scotland. If the Conservatives had built 10,000 extra houses each year during their 13 years of office, as we urged upon them, 130,000 families in Scotland would not be living in sub-standard conditions today.

Prisoners (Photographic Records)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present practice with regard to photographing persons detained in Her Majesty's Prisons in Scotland immediately prior to their release, for record purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: There is no procedure whereby prisoners are photographed immediately before release. The Scottish Criminal Record Office is provided with photographs of convicted prisoners in certain defined categories shortly after their admission on sentence. The photograph is scrutinised at two-yearly intervals or when the person's appearance has


changed, for example, by the growth or removal of a beard, and if necessary a fresh photograph is taken.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would it not be a good idea for the Government to introduce a procedure whereby photographs are taken of prisoners immediately before their release, so that if a prisoner repeats an offence or commits another, there would be some useful record to go by?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, but we check whether any kind of change has occurred, and if the man had drastically altered in appearance that would be taken care of and a photograph would be taken.

North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Fishings)

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of fishings still in the ownership of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Five main fishings, and a number of smaller ones.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that there is growing anxiety in my constituency about the future of these fishings? It is felt that they should be handed over to the Highlands and islands Development Board for the benefit of tourism.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I know of this matter and I will be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about it. But there is a great deal of argument on the other side whether they should be held by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or by the Highlands and Islands Development Board.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend having discussions about the matter with the Highlands and Islands Development Board? Does he expect action to be taken soon on the Hunter Report?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I should not at this stage like to comment on the second part of that supplementary question. On the first part, my hon. Friend knows that the Board recently sold their fishings on the River Shin and we are discussing other matters with them.

ANNUAL FARM PRICE REVIEW

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Annual Farm Price Review. Details are in a White Paper now available in the Vote Office.
During 1968–69, the agricultural industry had a difficult 18 months largely as a result of poor weather and the aftermath of the foot-and-mouth epidemic. These factors, coupled with the tight credit situation, affected the momentum towards expansion. Even so, progress towards the objectives of the selective expansion programme continued, although in varying degree. It is against this background that this Review has been conducted, and the Government's aim is to ensure that the industry is enabled to overcome these problems.
This year, net output and net income are forecast to have risen substantially. Output in the 1969–70 farm year is expected to reach as high a point as it has ever done. Net income at over £535 million is expected to be the highest ever. We are anxious to maintain this momentum of production so as to make further progress towards the objectives of the selective expansion programme In order to do this and to tide the industry over until this year's improvement has worked through, certain of the industry's needs must be met. These needs are clear: to replenish cash resources, to contain costs and to increase investment. This cannot be done simply by sticking to the traditional Annual Review methods of price adjustment and production grants. The leaders of the industry have recognised the importance of the Government's willingness to adopt a more flexible approach and to design the measures to meet the real need.
The four point package that we are introducing is this. First, commodity prices: we are again making effective increases for the priority commodities—beef, pigmeat, wheat and barley. Because of the special circumstances this year, we are doing the same for milk, sheep and potatoes. The increases on these seven commodities will not only offset costs but give farmers money over and above this. They amount to about £54 million.


In accordance with our policy, we shall reduce the guaranteed price of eggs by 1·43d. per dozen. We are ending the Small Farm (Business Management) Scheme which has run its course.
Secondly, extra resources in the way most quickly to hand: we are raising the rates of fertiliser and lime subsidies for the next 12 months. Nearly all farmers use fertilisers, and we calculate that, depending on uptake, this will put an extra £10 million into the industry.
Thirdly, we shall introduce new incentives to eradicate brucellosis through premiums on milk and on beef cows in accredited herds. These should amount on average to £5 million annually in the first years. They will automatically increase as more herds become accredited. The impetus to eradicate this disease will also help further to reduce costs. There is public concern about this disease, and I am anxious to make rapid progress to eradicate it.
Fourthly, there will be further incentives and resources directly linked to investment. We shall raise substantially for two years the rates of the agricultural capital grant schemes. The injection of cash through our other measures will, I believe, enable farmers to take full advantage of this improvement. The increased rates of capital grant should make available another £20 million or more for direct investment over a period of about two years.
The Orders providing for increased rates of fertiliser and lime subsidies and of capital grants will be laid before the House at once. The changes will come into effect tomorrow.
This four point package cannot be precisely evaluated in conventional Review terms. But the measures more than recoup costs as an exceptional arrangement this year and leave the industry with its efficiency gain in full.
In total, very substantial resources have been committed to the agricultural industry as a result of this Review. These, including the increased capital grants spread over a period of about two years, amount to about £85 million. We have provided the opportunities and conditions for the industry to keep up and improve the momentum of selective expansion. I believe that farmers will respond. The trends to greater production and produc-

tivity must then result in a substantial move towards their income objective this year and the achievement of the selective expansion programme.

Mr. Godber: While we readily acknowledge that the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given on this occasion are higher than previously, is it not true That a large part is due to the very heavy increases in farmers' costs over the year? Perhaps he can tell us what they are. Is it not also an indication of the serious decline of the industry over the last few years? Will he tell us by how much the award falls short of what the farmers' leaders asked for, and will he tell us whether this determination has been agreed by the farmers' leaders? Can he also tell us, on the most optimistic interpretation of his figures, how much lower the purchasing power of farm incomes will be as a result of this Review than it was after the last Review for which a Conservative Government were responsible? Is he aware that we are glad that he is taking steps to help eradicate brucellosis? Are we to have area eradication in the near future? Without it, we cannot make progress. As for the capital grants, from where does he think farmers will find the necessary money to enable them to take advantage of the grants?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has shown a characteristically gloomy reaction to my statement. I am surprised that he has had to fall back on the old argument that we have not done too well. After all, income and output have gone up substantially in the last year, and we have produced two cost-plus reviews in our short time in power whereas right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite managed to produce only one in their 13 years in office, and that was in the election year of 1964. As to the uptake of capital grants, I think that recoupment of costs for the main commodities plus an injection of capital on top of that will enable farmers to take advantage of this Review and go forward with the selective expansion programme.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what were the N.F.U.'s aims. The Review is not agreed. I am extremely sorry that it is not agreed in view of the fact that it is a very good Review. The N.F.U. leaders set themselves an income objective of £650 million. It was deduced from that that their aim was £140 million. They


have never set such a precise aim, and I do not think that they had it in mind that the Review should be an award of £140 million. In fact, this Review will enable farmers to get on with the job.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his approach to the Price Review is something to which we have been looking forward, especially after the recommendations of the Select Committee on Agriculture? Can my right hon. Friend spell out what will be done in hill farming areas to assist those who have had a very bad deal in the last year or two?

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. This Review will be of considerable advantage to hill farmers. We are making good increases on the guaranteed prices of sheep and of fat cattle. In addition, we are putting 30s. on the hill cow subsidy and £1 on the beef cow subsidy. On capital grants, we are making increases in grants under the Hill Land Improvement Scheme. For drainage in hill areas, the grant will be increased from 60 to 70 per cent., which is a very substantial amount.

Sir R. Grant-Ferris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that milk producers in my constituency and throughout the country will look upon what he has done for milk as derisory? Does he further realise that unless he substantially increases the standard quantity—unfortunately I have been unable to find out whether he has or not, and he has not said so; if he has, I think that he should have said so—and implements promises to restrict imports, the milk producing industry in this country is finished?

Mr. Hughes: The fact is that we have done extremely well for the milk producing industry. The guaranteed price is now the highest ever. There will be an increase of 2d. a gallon on milk. Milk producers will benefit from all four parts of this package. In particular, the industry will gain increasing advantages year by year from the brucellosis scheme, because that will give the farmer who has a brucellosis-free herd 1¼d. a gallon on top of the 2d., which is a very substantial sum indeed.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the National Farmers Union—I am a member of the N.F.U.—by and large will welcome this Review? I say that because, by a quick calculation, one can readily appreciate that the average milk farmer in this country will get a substantial increase in his return of about £200 to £250 a year. But may I ask my right hon. Friend to go into the question and give us an indication of what the average farmer will gain from this Price Review?

Mr. Hughes: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that farmers will appreciate this Review when they have studied it and calculated the advantages which they will gain from it. It is difficult to be precise about a calculation of the actual effect on farmers' incomes of any given Review; but I should say—these are approximate figures—that a small dairy farm with about 25 dairy cows would get about £200 a year extra; that a medium sheep farm with about 600 ewes would get about the same; that a medium cereals farm of about 220 cereal acres would get about £500 a year extra; and that a specialist pig producer with about 100 sows would get about £600 a year extra. This is the kind of return that the farmer will get as a result of this Review.

Sir G. Nabarro: Speaking as a member of the National Farmers Union, may I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Worcestershire farmers will deplore a non-agreed settlement today? Whereas we realise how difficult it is to evaluate the whole package, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us what the effect of Part I of the package will be—the increase in commodity prices—and what progress that makes towards bridging the gap between farmers' incomes last year of £535 million and farmers' demands for £650 million? How much of that £115 million is made up of the commodity advance in prices?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will know very well that it is not possible, in view of the imponderables of weather and disease, to calculate today to what extent that objective can be met. But this Review will take farmers a good way towards their objective. I am sure


that the farmers of South Worcestershire will be pleased with this Review.

Mr. Hazell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing what I regard as a fair Price Review. I am speaking for the industry, not the N.F.U.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in determining labour costs, which are set out in the White Paper on the guaranteed products being increased by £20 million, he has taken into account that this is based on the present labour force, not that which it is likely to be at the end of 12 months and that, therefore, to this extent the estimated cost is far beyond what will be the real cost when the final accounts are known at the end of the year?

Mr. Hughes: What my hon. Friend has said is perfectly true. We must bear in mind that, in respect of family farms, the labour cost is not borne at all.

Mr. Hooson: In quoting the figures for farms of different kinds, was the Minister not giving the gross addition to income, not the net addition, which is eaten up by increases in costs?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the balance of the Review between beef, sheep and milk? As the increase for milk is relatively greater than for sheep or beef, there will be a tendency for people, who might otherwise go in for beef or sheep, to stick to milk production.
Thirdly, as most progressive farmers buy fertiliser early in the year, and most have already done so, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to make the fertiliser subsidy retrospective at least to the start of the year to cover orders already placed?

Mr. Hughes: I was giving the approximate figures and dealing with net incomes. I think that the balance of the award on commodities is right in the light of our efforts to meet the objectives of the selective expansion programme.
Concerning fertilisers, we are laying the Orders and the changes will come into effect tomorrow. For technical reasons, it is difficult to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. But I should like to add one thing more about fertilisers. I am glad to be able to announce that the

fertiliser manufacturers have agreed, subject to any exceptional circumstances, not to raise costs over the next 12 months.

Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend besides being described properly as the Minister for farming interests, is also the Minister for the consumer. Will he, therefore, tell us what effect he expects this Review to have on the cost of living in respect of food, what effect it would have had had the whole of the farmers' demands been met, and what effect it would have had if the policy of the party opposite had been accepted?

Mr. Hughes: The effect on retail food prices will be felt only on milk. Thy price of milk will go up by 1d. a pint towards the end of the year. At this stage I cannot give a precise date. Apart from that, there will be no effect on food prices. That is the value of this system as opposed to the system of the Opposition. If they were operating their system, with this kind of Review, the effect on retail food prices—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear the truth—would be to increase they by 2 per cent.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Will the Minister now answer the question put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), namely, how does this award compare in real terms with the last award of a Conservative Government on net farm income?

Mr. Hughes: This award, taking all awards from 1948, even excluding the 10 per cent. increase on capital grants, is the best since the Tom Williams award of 1948.

Mr. Kenyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side recognise that, under the very difficult circumstances in which he has negotiated this Price Review, it is both reasonable and acceptable? Does he also recognise that farmers—I speak as a farmer—always ask for more than they expect to get?

Mr. Hughes: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend who has, as always, posed a very honest question.

Captain Orr: The Minister gave figures of the net effect of the Review on those who farm certain commodities. Can he give similar figures for the effect on the average egg producer?

Mr. Hughes: Not without notice.

Miss Devlin: While welcoming what the Minister said in introducing incentives to eradicate brucellosis and appreciating the effect that this will have on milk farming in Northern Ireland, may I ask whether he can outline briefly what beneficial effects the small farmer who is a distant producer, such as the small farmer in Northern Ireland, can hope to get from this Review?

Mr. Hughes: I think I can tell the hon. Lady that Northern Ireland will benefit especially from this Review. Northern Ireland has a better season than the rest of the United Kingdom during 1968–69, and full-time farming incomes in Northern Ireland increased by an average of 17 per cent. This Review is very helpful to livestock producers. Since brucellosis has largely been eradicated in Northern Ireland, the new scheme will bring in extra cash for almost all milk producers and beef cow producers, and therefore small farmers will benefit.

Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the increased 2d for milk will apply uniformly over the United Kingdom? Will Scottish farmers get the full benefit of it? Second, can the right hon. Gentleman make clear whether what he has said is designed to maintain the present output, or to increase it? If it is to increase it, what does he propose to do about imports o stop them undermining the market?

Mr. Hughes: The 2d. will apply over the whole of the United Kingdom, and the object of the Review is to maintain output. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the stability of the market—and he is constantly asking questions about it—he knows that we have quotas on butter, voluntary restraint on cheese, and that we are operating de facto the G.A.T.T. arrangements on skimmed milk powder, which will give the home producer far greater opportunities than he has now.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that agriculture, right across, is the nearest thing to what the Americans call a lobby? Would it not have been better to have referred this to the Prices and Incomes Board? Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the end of the day most people who live in cities, and consumers, will consider that this is a very handsome settlement?

Mr. Hughes: The operation of the Price Review comes under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and our procedure, therefore, is a statutory obligation. I agree with my right hon. Friend that one has to keep the balance between the producer and the consumer. We do this better than any other country in the world.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is not the forecast of net agricultural output in 1969–70, set out in Table K, the same as for 1967–68? There has therefore been no move forward. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously maintain that he is on target with his own selective expansion programme?

Mr. Hughes: I have explained many times, and I shall do so again briefly, what the position is on the selective expansion programme. We are on target for beef, we are lagging behind on cereals because of the wet weather that we had nine months ago, and we are just about on target for pigs. With the boost provided by this Review, we shall attain our targets by 1972–73.

Mr. Milne: Can my right hon. Friend say something more about the four-point package, how it is evaluated, and what effect it will have on import savings? Can he also tell us how the fertiliser subsidy will benefit the consumer, rather than the monopoly fertiliser firms?

Mr. Hughes: The increase in the fertiliser subsidy will benefit the consumer in so far as it will assist the producer to produce food which is sold in this country at a reasonable price, especially compared with the price in other countries. As regards the four point package, we have tried to help the farmers' need for immediate cash, and to make for investment in the industry. If we can get the balance of these two things right, this will help us to achieve our objective.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think you will be aware that you have called a Member for a Scottish constituency on that side of the House but not a


Member for a Scottish constituency on this side.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is usually accurate. He is inaccurate today. I think that one of his colleagues whom I called comes from a Scottish constituency.

HOUSING

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I will, with permission, make a statement on decisions the Government have made to stimulate the provision of additional homes.
We have recently taken a number of steps to improve the housing situation. In the public sector, we have undertaken, and are pursuing, discussions with those local housing authorities whose intentions do not appear to match their housing needs. In the private sector, we have improved the option mortgage scheme by increasing the subsidy to home buyers; this took effect on 1st January. The building societies are benefiting from the Save-as-your-Earn scheme, and their spokesmen have predicted that their lending may top £1,700 million this year—about £150 million more than last year. We must all hope that, with an improvement in their financial situation, the building societies, who have been unable to do so in the last year or so, will be able to revert to their traditional practice in the finance of house-construction, and also to make fuller use than they have recently been able to make of the 100 uper cent. mortgage guarantee arrangements under the option mortgage scheme.
In the public and private sector alike, the prospect has already been improved by my announcement of last November that the ceiling for local authority lending in England and Wales had been increased by £45 million for 1970–71—that is, from £55 million in the financial year just closing to £100 million in the coming one. The provision of additional homes to modern standards by conversion or improvement has also been stimulated by the more generous grants for which provision was made in the Housing Act, 1969. In only five months since the passing of the 1969 Act improvement grants approved by local authorities have been

about 48,600, that is 4,000 more than in the comparable period a year earlier.
All these measures, taken together with a steadily improving economic situation, should materially improve the prospects. But the improving economy also enables the Government to give a further boost to the enlargement and improvement of our national housing stock.
First, local authority mortgage lending. We have decided still further to increase, to about £155 million, the amounts to be allocated to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales for the financial year 1970–71—an additional £50 million.
I have started, and will shortly complete, discussions with the local authority associations in England and Wales about the basis on which the increased total should be allocated. My right hon. Friend will be making a similar arrangement for Scotland. There are special purposes which local authorities have a particular interest in serving. They should be able to facilitate, for example, the purchase of houses for owner-occupation by existing council tenants, people on waiting lists, or key workers moving into development areas or intermediate areas. I expect, too, that the generous provisions of the Housing Act, 1969, will produce a demand from people who want to buy houses, and to improve them. In all these classes, there will be people who need a higher percentage advance than a building society would give. In such cases the local authorities, who already make about a fifth of all their advances at 100 per cent. of valuation, can meet that need. In the light of the discussions I have already had with the associations, I am confident that they will be able to increase the proportion of 100 per cent. advances they make.
There is another field of housing activity to which we can give an additional stimulus; that of housing associations and housing societies.
Housing associations have a long and honourable history. Much of their effort is in ways which add to the efforts of the local housing authorities themselves. They have been particularly successful in meeting the needs of people whose means are small and whose needs are special; for example, the elderly and the


disabled. With Government encouragement the number of housing associations which specialise in housing the elderly, and are affiliated to the National Federation of Housing Societies, rose from 361 in 1964 to 565 in 1969.
The Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, and the Housing Act, 1969, have greatly enlarged the field of operation of housing associations. By making available to them grants which cover a large part not only of the cost of converting such property, but also the cost of acquisition before conversion, we have given them an opportunity to enter into partnership with the local authorities in the improvement of our older houses. Largely in consequence of this there has been a very considerable upsurge in housing association activity. Six years ago local authority advances to housing associations were running at an annual rate of about £3¼ million a year. The present rate is about £17 million a year. We have fostered and encouraged this increase and we intend that it should go on at an even higher level. There is certainly scope for further expansion of this work in many parts of the country.
We are also anxious to encourage the work of co-ownership housing societies operating under the Housing Corporation. We have therefore made a further allocation of resources to the Corporation. This will enable it to enter into additional commitments of about £10 million. With the participation of building societies we expect that the additional total commitment to housing societies will be at least £20 million in 1970–71.
I believe that these further practical steps will greatly improve the nation's housing prospects, and that they will be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the announcement of additional funds to the Housing Corporation, particularly in view of the very big decline in its programme in the last two years? Is he further aware that we welcome the Government's conversion, evidenced in their statement, that they wish part of the money made available for local authority mortgages to be used for the sale of existing council houses to tenants? Is he aware that having said that, in the view of this

side of the House, his statement can be summarised as being far too little far too late? Is he also aware that the money he is now suggesting should be made available for local authority mortgages is £24 million less than the amount made available in 1964?
Does he realise that as a result of a rise in the price of houses—of £1,500 per house—since Labour came into power, to provide the same number of mortgages today as we provided in 1964 he would need not £155 million but £255 million? Finally, is he aware that after his statement today it is clear that a Prime Minister who won the last election by promising 500,000 houses a year, lower prices and cheaper mortgages will go out of power building 140,000 fewer houses than he promised, at much higher prices, and with much dearer mortgages?

Mr. Greenwood: I should correct the first remark of the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that this money was being made available to facilitate the sale of council houses. I said it was to be made available to enable people who wished to move out of council houses to buy their own houses. This is a very different thing. The hon. Gentleman quite predictably talked about too little too late. Perhaps he will compare the £131 million in housing subsidies which we gave in the current financial year with the £82 million paid in 1966–67.

Any Hon. Member: What about the increase in prices?

Mr. Greenwood: This is much more than the increase in prices. As to the general amount made available for home loans, I have every reason to believe that the authorities will find it perfectly possible to meet the priority classes to which I referred in my statement, within the ceiling laid down.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is good but that it will have to be far better if we are to retain the 1968 programme—

Hon. Members: 1964.

Mr. Allann: Is he aware that the difficulty is not so much over building society loans as with the builders' loans from the banks? Will the Government now, in view of the improved financial position, deal with this too? It is essential.

Mr. Greenwood: The assertion my hon. Friend makes is open to doubt. I am sure that he knows that this matter was dealt with effectively by the Chancellor in reply to Questions yesterday.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this statement may be an attempt to make an honest man of the Prime Minister and his promises? [Laughter.] Does he appreciate that his statement makes no reference to S.E.T., which is increasing the cost of housing, particularly for newlyweds, by an extra £200 a house? Does he realise that this statement will be looked upon as hypocrisy? Will he approach the Chancellor in an attempt to remove this stupid tax?

Mr. Greenwood: I very much deplore the way in which the hon. Gentleman refers to my right hon. Friend. That kind of remark and the general hilarity that characterised its reception by hon. Gentlemen opposite tends to detract from the seriousness of the housing situation. I would suggest two pieces of reading for the hon. Gentleman: one is the Reddaway Report and the other is the open letter to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) which appeared in The Times a few weeks ago.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While very much welcoming this further sign of the increasing financial strength of the country, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will give an assurance that every effort will be made to concentrate these extra funds on relatively lower-priced housing where the need is perhaps greatest? Will he also ensure that there is the utmost flexibility in the movement of funds from authorities which are not prepared to use them to those which are?

Mr. Greenwood: I have had discussions with the local authority associations on this. I shall be consulting them further, but it is my intention that the money should be made available for special priority classes. I would hope to instil as much as flexibility as possible into the way that the money is allocated.

Mr. Lawler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although he speaks about local authorities now being able to increase the proportion of 100 per cent. advances that they make, in many

cases local authorities do not make even one-fifth of their advances of 100 per cent. loans, particularly in connection with the purchase of older property? Will he do something to ease the difficulties of many people in obtaining a house in this way? Furthermore, when he speaks about the steadily improving economic situation materially improving the prospects, does he realise that it will still be impossible for most modest income families to be able, even with 100 per cent. mortgages, to purchase a house until the Government give them some real help with repayments?

Mr. Greenwood: There has been substantial help already, through the option mortgage scheme. I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about many local authorities not giving 100 per cent. advances, but I am sure that it is the wish of most local authorities to do so. I have reason to believe that local authorities will be prepared to increase the proportion of 100 per cent. advances that they make and I very much hope that the understanding which I have with them will produce the result that both the hon. Gentleman and I want.

Mrs. Renée Short: While welcoming the fact that more money is to be made available for house purchase, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that for the lower income group families, not able to take advantage of the option mortgage scheme, it is Bank Rate which is the really prohibitive factor? Is he aware that he ought to make respresentations to the Chancellor to deal with this? Does he further appreciate that the proposals he has made go no way at all towards increasing the number of houses built for rent, which is what the country needs? Does he realise that this does not deal with the local authority sector? Will he be making another statement tomorrow telling us what he proposes to do about that?

Mr. Greenwood: To answer my hon. Friend's first question, about interest rates, she will know from previous exchanges that we have had in the House that these largely reflect world conditions. I know that my hon. Friend will have welcomed the recent reduction in Bank Rate, reflecting the improvement in our economic position.
To answer her second question, about local authority building to let, my immediate objective is to end the log jam which at present exists in the private sector market. We are engaged in discussions with the local authorities and also with the Housing Programme Working Party about stepping up the general public sector building programme. We would welcome help not only from my hon. Friends but from hon. Gentlemen opposite to make sure that every local authority in a priority area is building to capacity.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: When the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago advised my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) to read the Reddaway Report, was he referring to Appendix A of that document, in which Professor Reddaway reprinted an article he wrote in 1966 in which he said, in effect, that it would be folly to put S.E.T. on building?

Mr. Greenwood: Having a great interest in the hon. Gentleman, I was simply seeking to improve his general education.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any step and every measure to increase owner-occupation is certainly to be welcomed? However, would he agree that this should be the first of a a number of new steps to extend owner-occupation? As the Minister responsible for housing, will he press the case, in the Cabinet and elsewhere, for 100 per cent. mortgage advances to be extended, remembering that there are many families, particularly in Greater London, who cannot be assisted without 100 per cent. mortgage advances?

Mr. Greenwood: Housing policy is inevitably a developing policy and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of 100 per cent. mortgages for people in greatest need. The steps that we have taken should make it more readily possible to extend 100 per cent. mortgage guarantees both through building societies and local authorities.

Sir Frank Pearson: As unemployment in the construction industries in the North-West is no less than 19 per cent. of the total unemployment in the region, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to

give an indication of how the measures which he has announced are likely to lower that unemployment level?

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir. To a considerable extent they will make it much easier to sell old houses, thus generally easing the housing market. They will also have a substantial effect on new house building. I hope, as I said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will help to encourage local authorities, including those in the North-West, to increase their public housing programmes.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the remarks he made about discriminating in favour of areas in most urgent need. Will he bear in mind that West Ham is in that category because of the difficulties of Ronan Point, and will he give special help in view of that? How many extra houses does he anticipate this new arrangement is likely to bring into the pipeline in, say, the next 12 or 18 months, or in any given period?

Mr. Greenwood: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that it depends very much on the extent to which the money that is made available is used for the purchase or sale of older houses and the extent to which it is directed towards new house building. A great deal depends on the exact time at which the initial steps are taken on the part of purchasers, building societies and local authorities.
To answer the first part, about West Ham, my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to put this issue to the House on a number of occasions. He will be aware that the offer which I originally made has been increased, from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., but I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of special consideration being given to his constituency.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. We must get on.

DIVISION BELLS

Mr. Speaker: I have received a note from the Serjeant at Arms which he has asked me to read. It says:
The Division bells were found to be defective when the House met this afternoon.


Temporary repairs have been effected, but the bells cannot be considered reliable at this day's sitting.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Regarding the note from the Serjeant at Arms which you read a short while ago, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what may happen later in the day if we have a vital vote and the bells are not operating. Although we may have had warning, what will be the effectiveness of the vote? How can the House be deemed to have given its considered view to a matter if it has not been given the traditional warning it has been led to expect?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we will have to improvise as we go along. It should be possible to extend the time for a Division to overcome the difficulty.

Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order on what is an important matter. It may be that you will have to take a decision when the occasion occurs, Mr. Speaker. However, if it should happen that the Division bells outside the House do not ring, then we may face the situation that many hon. Members will not have had any indication that the bells are ineffective or that a Division is taking place. I mention this at this point because if the Division bells do not ring outside the House, as they customarily do, the hon. Members concerned will not have had effective warning, apart from the verbal one which you have given, Mr. Speaker, which may not have come to their notice. A serious situation might arise and we may have to ask for the vote to be reviewed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. Mr. McNamara.

Mr. McNamara: Further to the point of order. In view of the rather difficult circumstances in which the House finds

itself, would it not be in order to send for the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)?

Mr. Speaker: We should have serious points of order. Bogus ones merely waste the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was right to call attention to the seriousness of the matter. We will have to deal with the issue when it arises at Ten o'clock. It is a difficulty, but the staff are doing what they can to repair the bells.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to my point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Again?

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you. You indicated that you might possibly extend the time for a Division. Is it possible, under the present rules of the House, for that to be done, or should we do something now to enable you to take that course should the occasion arise?

Mr. Speaker: The House is asking me to deal with the matter when it arises. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that perhaps I will not be able to deal with it because I do not have the necessary power. I think that the House is prepared to give Mr. Speaker the power, in the circumstances.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and, in the case of the Questions which under the provisions of paragraphs (7) and (9) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith at Ten o'clock, he shall this day put such Questions forthwith so soon as the House has entered upon the Business of Supply.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Notice of objection having been given to a total amount on which the Question was to be put, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question thereon.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1969–70

Question,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £198,118,000 (Revised Sum), be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March. 1970, for expenditure in respect of the Supplementary Estimates set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 128, 181 and 182, of which notice has been given in pursuance of Standing Order No. 18(9).
put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, in respect of such outstanding Defence Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as had been presented not less than seven clear days previously and of the outstanding Excess Votes, the Questions that the total amount outstanding be granted for the purposes defined in those Supplementary Estimates and for the services defined in such Statements of Excess.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1969–70

Question,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,701,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1970 for expenditure on Defence Services, of which notice has been given in pursuance of Standing Order No. 18(9).
put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES (EXCESSES), 1968–69

Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,105,019 1s. 10d., be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to make good excesses for certain grants for the Civil Services for the year ended 31st March, 1969, of which notice has been given in pursuance of Standing Order No. 18(9).
put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions and the Resolution of yesterday relating to Defence Estimate, 1970–71 (Vote on Account), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Taverne.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March, 1969, 1970 and 1971, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

CIVIL AIR TRANSPORT

4.20 p.m.

Mr. F. V. Corfield: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the approval in principle by Her Majesty's Government of the proposals by the British Overseas Airways Corporation to take over British United Airways, thereby undermining their own policy for civil air transport as stated in Command Paper No. 4213; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the establishment of a second force independent airline is not frustrated either by the implementation of this proposal or by surrender to threats of industrial action.
As our Motion makes clear, this debate is concerned with the Government's intention, as evidenced by their approval in principle of this take-over, completely to overthrow their own policy as set out in the White Paper which was laid before the House only four months ago. That White Paper represented the Government's reactions—indeed, their considered reactions—to the report of the committee which they themselves have set up, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Ronald Edwards.
To inquire into the economic and financial situation and prospects of the British civil air transport industry … and to propose … what changes may be desirable to enable the industry to make its full contribution to the development of the economy and to the service and safety of the travelling public.
The Edwards Committee reported to the Government on 1st April, 1969. Its Report was laid before Parliament about a month later. The Government have therefore allowed themselves some seven months for its consideration, during which period, according to paragraph 8 of the White Paper, they have invited comments from all interested parties, having
… taken account of the many views expressed in the course of extensive and thorough consultations.
In these circumstances, and even with this Government, with their dismal record of broken promises and reversed policies, the House, the industry and the country are entitled to assume that those proposals set forth in the White Paper represented the genuine policies of the Government on which they could rely.
But an absolutely cardinal theme of the White Paper was the acceptance in very large part of the Edwards Com-

mittee's recommendations in relation to the private sector and its relationship to the public sector and the preservation and encouragement of competition. The White Paper refers to
The principle"—
to use the Government's own phrase,
of the minimum of restraint on competition or innovation …".
What greater restraint on competition can there be than a monopoly?
It is a thousand pities, though perhaps not untypical, that having so assiduously canvassed the views of what they called the interested parties, the Government should, by their steadfast refusal to allow time to debate either of these documents, have failed to take into consideration the views of hon. Members. That is not a defect which the time available today enables one to make good, but I have to say that though there are matters of substance in the White Paper with which we on this side would take issue, there nevertheless remained—and I use the past tense advisedly—a good deal of common ground. I believe that there was enough common ground at any rate to have taken the air transport industry at least out of the more bitter areas of party politics. The Government's proposal wholly reverses that situation.
A large and crucial part of the common ground lies in the Government's proposals in regard to the private sector, but there is also common ground in much that they say about the C.A.A. and, indeed, in what they propose for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I mention it only in passing because it is only indirectly relevant to the debate.
But what is also crucial is the fact that British United Airways is the only independent airline operating scheduled services on international and domestic trunk routes on any scale at all. The addition of its substantial inclusive tour business puts the airline well ahead of all other independent airlines in most measurements of size, though it is not significantly ahead, in terms of passenger seat miles, of Caledonian, whose business is confined to the inclusive tour and charter markets. So much is this the case that, throughout the Edwards Report, B.U.A. is specifically accepted by name, as the obvious and, indeed, the essential nucleus of the "second force"


independent airline to which the Committee gives very much attention, and the emergence of which by amalgamation—and the Edwards Committee clearly had Caledonian in mind as the appropriate partner—we are told in paragraph 39 of the White Paper the Government "would welcome". The paragraph continues by saying that the Government
 agree with the Committee's view that this would almost certainly take some time. A new airline of this kind must evolve progressively, proving itself at each stage.
The Government have allowed precisely four months—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Read the next sentence.

Mr. Corfield: I will do so, if the hon. Member wishes—indeed, I would willingly read the whole of the White Paper and the Edwards Report, but I do not think that to do so would help the House. As I was saying, the Government have allowed precisely four months.
The paragraph goes on:
It is for the airlines to decide, in the exercise of their commercial judgment and in the light of market forces, whether and in what ways to come together.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) or the Government is suggesting that when the Government drafted that sentence which appears in a paragraph which, in turn, appears in a section of the Report devoted exclusively to the private sector, they had in mind a merger of B.U.A. and B.O.A.C. or, indeed, that such a merger could in any way fulfil the objectives of their policy. Can it seriously be contended that the disappearance of this nucleus—this essential nucleus, because of its significant scheduled services—does not utterly destroy the whole concept of the second force? This, indeed, is the view of the industry, and it is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
It is relevant to recall the principle reasons for the Edwards Committee advocating a strong independent sector to include a second force airline licensed to operate a viable network covering scheduled and inclusive tours and charter traffic both long and short haul. The committee devoted many pages to this matter, and it is fair to summarise by saying that the committee's first concern was to secure the maximum degree

of competition within the control that is inevitable and essential to an airline of this character. The committee's views are set out quite clearly in paragraphs 293, 294 and 295.
Paragraph 294 is, perhaps, the significant paragraph. It states:
In a regulated system competition is itself an important instrument of regulation: a means by which the licensing authority may maintain a check on the efficiency of airlines which have been granted the protection of a licence. As a means of measuring the efficiencies of licensed airlines the existence of competing airlines provides the regulatory authority with yardsticks for which it is extremely difficult to find adequate alternatives. But over and above this advantage, we think that competition is the most effective way by which the travelling public may be assured that they will get confortable and efficient service; that there will be enough capacity; that they will gain the advantages of technological advances; and, perhaps most important, that they will be able to enjoy the satisfaction of being able to choose between alternative carriers. All of us are aware of the frustrations of dealing with monopoly suppliers and some of us have had experience of the difficulties and disadvantages, in terms of public relations, of being monopoly suppliers.
Turning to paragraph 295, one reads:
We have been told many times that service on domestic trunk routes in the U.K. has much improved since competitive services were authorised in 1963.
I believe that is the experience of every one of my hon. and right hon. Friends who travel to and from this country and to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Of course, the Government appear to have accepted these tenets without any qualification whatever. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper says:
In setting these objectives for the industry, the Government consider that the minimum restriction should be imposed on it or on the users of its services, and that arrangements which restrain competition or innovation should be tolerated only to the extent that they are necessary to achieve the main objectives of policy.
Monopoly is the greatest restraint of all. In paragraph 34 the Government say that they
also agree broadly with the Committees's views about competition on domestic routes. There are already two carriers licensed to serve the trunk routes between London and Belfast, Edinburgh and Glasgow. In the longer term, as the volume of traffic increases, there may be room to license a second carrier on other primary routes. But the main need of the immediate future is to consolidate the position of the second carrier on those routes where competing services already exist, with a view


to the eventual removal of limitations on the frequency of its services,".
One may ask, where is that competition to be now?

Mr. Robert Howarth: Surely the hon. Gentleman should distinguish between the situation domestically where there is justification for the strictures he has made, and when we move anywhere out of the United Kingdom where both corporations are up against very stiff competition from other countries' airlines?

Mr. Corfield: That has not escaped my attention, and the hon. Member will be aware that it did not escape the attention of Sir Ronald Edwards. The second contention of the committee is in the middle of paragraph 47:
even when direct competition is not desirable"—
that is the condition to which the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) was referring—
we believe it is valuable to have more than one source of expertise, judgment, experience and enterprise including commercial innovation.
It goes on to illustrate B.U.A.'s running of South American routes and illustrates the third important point:
we already have the beginnings of a second force.
The committee's third concern is directed to the other side of the coin, the size and efficiency of B.O.A.C. Throughout Chapter 6 of the Edwards Report there runs a common theme, or, as the committee calls it, a "philosophic assumption". It is described in paragraph 232, and it is basically a desire to ensure that no airline should be greater than it need be to obtain the economies of scale and the necessity of different approaches to problems of management, and as many of those different approaches as possible without loss to the economy. I wholeheartedly endorse that assumption.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Corfield: No. I have dealt with the hon. Member. He missed the point once and he has had his shot.
Let it be recalled that the Edwards Committee was appointed by this Government. It was not composed exclusively of Conservatives. Of the eight members,

if we include the assessor, no fewer than four had considerable experience over a considerable period in important positions in nationalised undertakings. If we assume, as I think we can, that the General Secretary of the National Union of Public Employees may also have fairly intimate knowledge of large-scale public organisations, there are five of the eight who have this type of experience.
Here again the Government appear quite specifically to endorse this line of thought. That appears in paragraph 14 of the White Paper which says:
The Government agree that structural changes should be encouraged, on the broad lines proposed in the Report. Greater size should not be pursued to the exclusion of desirable competition.
Surely this is precisely what this B.U.A.-B.O.A.C. tie-up will result in. In paragraph 7 of the White Paper one does not find much evidence that the Government's view of management of the nationalised corporations has reached such a stage of perfection that a self-evident conclusion emerges that the airlines would benefit immediately by widening their responsibilities by taking charge of a successful national competitor.
When one recalls the constant trouble over B.O.A.C. pilots, one wonders whether it makes any sense to bring in a body of pilots of whom B.A.L.P.A. has always said it would not welcome into the system. Does it make sense for the Board of Trade even to contemplate allowing B.O.A.C. to buy up a competitor—its most active competitor in the independent field—and whose rates of productivity do not quite come up to those of B.O.A.C., but substantially exceed those of B.E.A.? My authority for saying that is table 3.4 on page 24 of the Edwards Report.
The Government have, of course, argued that since the initial approach was made by B.U.A. to B.O.A.C. there can be no question of deliberate reversal of policy. They have implied that we are suggesting that B.U.A. has been acting improperly in making such an approach. This is a defence which simply does not wash. I have no doubt that many people would like to unload their businesses for cash on to the nearest nationalised corporation. If reports of the purchase price that have been heard are accurate, compared with the price paid by British and


Commonwealth three years ago, perhaps this was not an unattractive offer. However that may be, it is no function of a nationalised undertaking, and it is not the function of a nationalised corporation, deliberately to go against public policy. Nor indeed is it the responsibility of B.O.A.C. The deal stands or falls on approval by the President of the Board of Trade and the responsibility is on him alone.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reverse that policy today. In any case, as I understand this story, although no doubt the truth is not the whole truth, the Edwards Committee believed that to establish a second force airline it would be necessary to transfer some routes from the corporations and the committee had B.O.A.C. principally in mind. In the White Paper in paragraph 41 the Government reject that approach. They equally rejected informal direct applications to the Board of Trade by B.U.A. Whether they were wise or unwise to do that is an argument for another day, but I think it relevant to remark that this is not a precondition of Caledonian's current bid. That is a matter of its commercial judgment as opposed to the commercial judgment of B.U.A. and it is not for me to judge between the two. Perhaps that is not for the right hon. Gentleman either.
After these proposals had been rejected by the Board of Trade, then and then only did B.U.A. approach B.O.A.C. and, I understand, in the first place discussed the possibilities of the transfer of routes and later other methods of possible co-operation. It was during those negotiations that the proposal that B.O.A.C. might buy B.U.A. emerged and the price was mentioned which the owners of B.U.A. regarded as one which should be accepted in the interests of its shareholders. That is a rather different impression from the one we got from some of the Press and Government statements to the effect that B.U.A. approached B.O.A.C. with the initial and sole object of selling if it possibly could.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton) rose—

Mr. Corfield: I shall not give way. I still have a lot to say.
As the House remembers, the news of this proposal and that it was to be accepted in principle by the right hon. Gentleman was made public on Friday, 6th March. It has generally been described as a leak, and I believe that it was a leak. If it was a leak, one can only assume—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to confirm or deny this—that the intention had been to tie up this deal completely and present it to the House and to the country as a fait accompli without any opportunity for debate. But whether it is true or not, it is curious that the announcement was made that the deal had been approved in principle. We should ask the right hon. Gentleman what exactly that means.
As I understand it, the actual figures had been agreed between the two negotiating parties and, therefore, I imagine that they must have been available to the Board of Trade for detailed analysis. But I could not believe even of this Government that, had they known that parallel to the British and Commonwealth negotiations with B.O.A.C. there was also negotiation with Caledonian with a view to a merger which would have been very close to what the Edwards Committee and, as we thought, the Government had in mind, they would have allowed this deal to proceed.
The Minister of State assured me—and I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not for one moment suggesting that he was not telling me the complete truth—that the Board of Trade was wholly unaware of this possibility. I have no doubt that the Board of Trade was not aware of it. My impression was that the Board of Trade was not only unaware of it but had the definite impression—and I am not sure that I was specifically told this, and I would not like to say it if it is not correct—that such a possibility was utterly and wholly non-existent as far as B.U.A. was concerned. It is only fair to say that there are different views of the discussions held by B.U.A. on the one hand and Caledonian on the other.
Having seen some of the documents which were prepared and agreed, I have not the slightest doubt that had it not been for the bid by B.O.A.C., the further discussions, which should have started on the following Tuesday, would have opened up a very real possibility of the merger which Edwards and others had


in mind. There was at that time no question of a take-over of B.U.A. by Caledonian; that came later when Caledonian heard of the B.O.A.C. takeover proposal. But I have no doubt now that the report that Caledonian is willing and able to make a takeover offer is genuine, and I have even been given to understand that it is prepared to top the B.O.A.C. offer provided that it can be substantiated as a sound offer on the basis of the financial figures.
As the House knows, other independent airlines have also been reported as showing a somewhat similar interest. So the President of the Board of Trade is therefore in no position to say either that there is no chance of a second force as envisaged by the White Paper, or that B.U.A. is likely to suffer either in the contribution it can make to British air transport or the service it can render to the public if B.O.A.C. now stands aside, unless the B.O.A.C. bid is more than is justified by the valuation of the assets. In that event, the right hon. Gentleman has a clear duty as guardian of the public money to institute now a very thorough investigation.
That brings me to the question of what B.O.A.C. will use for money? My information is that this is definitely a cash deal. The House will recall the debate on 9th December—this is col. 376 in the OFFICIAL REPORT—On the last B.O.A.C. (Borrowing Powers) Order. The whole of the amount currently available under the current Act was voted to B.O.A.C. specifically wholly and exclusively to meet the costs of re-equipment. It is abundantly clear that if B.O.A.C. is to use that money to purchase its competitor it will be using it for a wholly different purpose from that for which it was voted by Parliament. If it is true that B.O.A.C. had sufficient reserves for this operation, it must also have been true that it had sufficient reserves to meet a great deal of its re-equipment and need not have come to the House when it did—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: That is a serious accusation—

Mr. Corfield: No, I will not give way—nor need it have come to the House as early as was forecast by the then Minister of State in that debate.
The House will also recall that when this matter was raised on Monday, 9th March the Minister of State gave us an

assurance that applications which by then had been put in by the independents in respect of B.U.A.'s routes would be considered by the A.T.L.B. without political interference. We very much welcomed that assurance, and I am convinced that it was absolutely right that it should have been given. But it raises other important side issues, for it must be remembered that all B.U.A.'s scheduled routes—with the exception of the South American route which it took over because B.O.A.C. withdrew—were awarded to B.U.A. by the A.T.L.B. in face of opposition from either B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. Therefore there is no reason to assume that the Board will not again prefer an independent to B.O.A.C. Indeed, if A.T.L.B. has regard or feels it incumbent upon it to have regard to Government policy—and it certainly set a precedent for this in the recent fares inquiry—it must he a probability rather than a possibility, for the White Paper remains the only authentic written statement of Government policy.
If this should happen the question arises again of what is B.O.A.C. buying and what is its value? I do not think that there can be much doubt that the value of B.U.A. to B.O.A.C. is B.U.A.'s route pattern rather than its aircraft. It is difficult to see how B.U.A.'s aircraft will fit comfortably into B.O.A.C.'s fleet. B.U.A.'s four VC10s, are, I understand very early models which B.O.A.C. frequently tells us have excessively high direct operating costs, and too small a capacity. Its eight BAC 1–11 200 series are substantially more expensive to run than the 500 series and in any case one can only see a rôle for this type of aircraft in charter services, certainly not in the scheduled services of B.O.A.C. I am also informed that the hanger at Gatwick owned by B.U.A. is too small for the 707.
How can B.O.A.C. and the Board of Trade, for that matter put a value on B.U.A. until the A.T.L.B. has made its decision? My information is that the A.T.L.B. is unlikely to be able to start its hearing before June and whatever decision it makes then is subject to appeal to the Board of Trade by the defeated party.
It was rumoured in the Press this morning—and various members of the Lobby rang me up last night—that the right


hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is to postpone his decision. I hope that he will at least do that because there is really no rational alternative in view of the procedures of the A.T.L.B., although I am bound to say this Government are not always very rational in dealing with public money as was evidenced by the Beagle affair last week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind—even if he is to tell us today that he withdraws his approval in principle—that it has already done much damage in the apprehension which it has raised throughout the independent sector of the airline industry and the anxieties and even antagonisms which have been aroused which will take years rather than months to heal.
The further question arises: what does B.O.A.C. propose to do with B.U.A.? Is is to be retained as an entity and run as such, a wholly-owned subsidiary like B.E.A. Air Tours? If that is the intention, we shall, presumably, see B.O.A.C. competing with B.E.A. on the domestic trunk routes. Whatever the merits of that may be—and there may be some—it cuts right across the whole underlying argument which the Government themselves used for the setting up of the Airways Board, and that, incidentally, is a provision of the White Paper with which this side of the House would agree as being more logical than that of the Edwards Report, though it is only right to add that our acceptance will have to be reconsidered if the takeover is completed, for then we shall have had a drastically changed situation.
What about B.U.A.'s charter and inclusive tour activities? Are these to be operated in competition with the independents, with public money? If so, there is an important principle here. Whatever the arguments may be for the provision of public funds to support scheduled services in this country's interest, those arguments do not apply to supporting let alone subsidising, purely holiday traffic originating in this country and, far from adding to the balance of payments, having the reverse effect.
There can be no doubt that there is a degree of subsidisation of B.E.A. Air Tours. One has only to talk to the managing director or read his reports to realise that B.E.A. Air Tours has been

set a target of 9 per cent., about what B.E.A. could secure if it lent the money to a local authority, and substantially below the target which the Government set for B.E.A. itself.
I turn now to the disastrous intervention of Mr. Clive Jenkins. This was a clear and unambiguous threat to enforce the takeover by industrial action and to undermine the authority and status of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is reported as having said categorically that he will not be intimidated by these or other threats. We welcome that assurance, and I sincerely hope that his attitude will be unanimously and unequivocally echoed and supported by hon. Members throughout the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) has been reported as saying, "We have dealt with the Clive Jenkinses of this world in the past, and we shall deal with them again". I wish that I shared his confidence, for behind Mr. Jenkins' irresponsible and dangerous attitude there lies this Government's supine ineptitude in their attitude to industrial relations as a whole.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Corfield: I am coming to the position of the trade unions. The Government must share responsibility for a situation in which the elected representatives of the people can be threatened, if only by words, by a trade union leader or by any leader of any sectional interest, whatever it be. The fact that this is a small union, and Mr. Jenkins is elected by a very small minority, is only an illustration of the absurdity of the situation. It is anarchy, whatever the sectional interest—and I doubt that it has the protection of the Trade Disputes Act.
The right hon. Gentleman has no alternative but to resist this threat and, more than that, to make clear for all to see that he is resisting it. This is a situation which I deeply regret, for I do not want him to make the decision to withdraw on those grounds, or to have to make it on those grounds. I want him to make the decision to withdraw because I believe that to adhere to the policies in the White Paper is essential if we are to restore some faith, not in this Government since they are beyond redemption, but in Government as an institution, and I want him to


restore a degree of confidence and certainty to the airline industry, for that is essential to the contribution which it makes to the economy and the services it renders to the public.
Having referred to Mr. Jenkins and, therefore, indirectly, to the trade unions—perhaps this will interest hon. Gentlemen opposite a little more—I wish to add a further word. I have not tried to assess the reactions and interests of employees. This is not because I do not regard them as important. They are of immense importance. It is simply that I have not the facilities to do it. However, I can only say that my mail certainly does not suggest any unanimous enthusiasm for employment by B.O.A.C. among the present employees of B.U.A. Indeed, as I came to the Chamber this afternoon I was handed this telegram:
British United Airways staff at Victoria air terminal totally disagree with the irresponsible and unfounded statements of Clive Jenkins. We do not wish to work for B.O.A.C. and wholeheartedly support the initiative of Freddie Laker and other independent airline operators in their bid for our airline. Good luck in today's debate—Officers and staff B.U.A. Victoria Air Terminal".

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman has just quoted a communication from workers at the B.U.A. terminal. Will he not recognise that the thousands of workers at London Airport, many of them in my union, the A.E.F., have a right to voice their opinion about what should happen at that terminal, that it is democratic for them to do so, and they will continue to do so irrespective of what the hon. Gentleman says?

Mr. Corfield: As far as I recall, I made no suggestion to the contrary. I simply said that, in my judgment, and from what my mail has shown, there is no unanimous enthusiasm on the subject.
I end with a plea to the President of the Board of Trade, not merely to postpone but to reject this take-over, and to reject It because to do so is in the interests of civil aviation today, as those interests have been seen not only by the Government themselves but by the Edwards Committee and by right hon. and hon. Members on this side and, I believe, many on that side as well.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, if he does not reverse this deal, he lays himself open—let us forget Mr. Jenkins

for the moment—to the charge that behind the façade of the Edwards Committee there has been a determined effort to eliminate the independents. For months, we have had the Edwards Report regarded as the excuse for inaction. Before that, we had the pronouncement by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Minister of Aviation, that no scheduled routes would henceforth be given to the independents in competition with the Corporations. We have had the Government subsidising B.E.A. to use an aircraft which other airlines use quite happily with profit and without subsidy. We have had the nationalisation of an important sector of the air tour market. We have had the establishment of B.E.A. Air Tours, which is clearly operating on a subsidised basis in competition. We have had the attempt by the President of the Board of Trade to restrict the inclusive trade tour traffic across the North Atlantic by private letter to independent operators restricting them to 1 per cent. of scheduled services.
Now, the Government propose, or were about to propose, or have approved in principle, a merger which would shatter all hope of the emergence of a viable independent scheduled operator and put a question mark over the whole future of the independents, even in the inclusive tour and charter sector. And all this behind a smokescreen of lip-service to a mixed economy, competition and service to the public.
Our Motion states our views. To it I add a charge of ineptitude, insincerity and cynicism.

5.0 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): The White Paper that I laid before the House last November was the first fully comprehensive statement of civil aviation policy to be made by any Government since 1945. It was based on the extremely thorough and authoritative report of the Edwards Committee, which in its turn was the first complete independent inquiry into this industry since before the war.
In fact there are not many cases where a Government have accepted so many of the recommendations of a committee covering so wide a field. The report and the White Paper are major landmarks in the industry's history and it is


right for the House, now that there has been time for everybody to reflect upon them, to debate some of the issues raised in them.
I did not find it hard to predict that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) would accuse me today of departing from the policy set out in the White Paper before we have had time to put the proposals into effect. It is an accusation which hardly befits the spokesman of the party that, in 1960, legislated to establish a licensing system that was little better than an elaborate framework enclosing a policy vacuum. The Tories established the Air Transport Licensing Board but gave it no guidance on the policy it should pursue, hoping instead that a policy would somehow emerge spontaneously. They then proceeded in 1961 to undermine the position of the A.T.L.B. and the confidence of the independents by reversing the A.T.L.B.'s decision to allow Cunard-Eagle to operate North Atlantic Schedule Services.
So much for the mealy-mouthed talk of the hon. Gentleman about confidence in civil aviation in the independent sector. Within a year of establishing the licensing system the Tories turned down an independent's application to go on the North Atlantic route. That seriously upset civil aviation, seriously undermined the A.T.L.B., and was also a kick in the mouth for the independents. The Tories are, therefore, mealy-mouthed when they talk about standing up for, and championing the cause of, independent civil aviation.
Before I explain how wrong the Tory Motion is, however, I should like to say something about the industry itself and what has been happening to it, and about the reasons that led the Government to adopt the policy that they did adopt and that they still adhere to. I think it is necessary to begin by doing this, in what is the first major debate since the White Paper appeared, so as to put the Motion into its proper perspective. I hope that the House will bear with me for a while if I set the scene in this way. The hon. Gentleman spelt out some of the background.
It is a commonplace to describe civil aviation as a rapidly growing industry. The astonishing thing is that everybody

takes it for granted. People seem to regard it as quite normal that civil aviation should double its output every five years or so and that it should show every sign of going on doing so. The truth is that sustained growth at a rate like this is quite exceptional and almost fantastic. The industry that we have today is no longer the same industry that the House legislated for in 1960. In 1980 it will be a different industry again—technologically, commercially, and in every other way. If it is to thrive, our thinking about the industry must seek to be at least one step ahead of the changes that are taking place.
Traditionally, the main effort of the industry has been the development and expansion of a worldwide network of scheduled services. This has been the main contribution of the two Air Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Nobody can deny that theirs has been a magnificent performance. B.O.A.C. is now achieving a level of profits that is the envy of its international competitors. B.E.A. is the largest airline within Europe and about the only airline to be making a profit on its European business.
We must recognise that there have been miscalculations and shortcomings in the past, and that there is always room to improve on a level of performance that is already high. Their achievements are none the less for that. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are our two greatest airlines. Indeed, they are among the world leaders. Quite clearly, we must do all we can to ensure that they are adapted and strengthened so as to remain among the world leaders in future.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—

Mr. Mason: I know the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise—about the write off. That was done. It has lessened B.O.A.C's interest payments and benefited the Corporation. I accept that. Since that, they have done remarkably well and paid £31 million on public dividend capital. That is an achievement also.
At the same time, and quite often in the face of great difficulties, our independent airlines have their own considerable achievements to their credit and to the country's credit. Their special achievement has been in the development of


charter traffic, the fastest growing sector of the industry today and one that can no longer be regarded as a second-class activity. Again, performance has been somewhat uneven and there have been failures, some of them spectacular. Does the hon. Gentleman want to challenge that? The best among the independents, however, can stand comparison in their skill and in the quality of their performance with the best in the world. They, too, are a national asset.
The Edwards Report and the White Paper both placed considerable emphasis on the interests of the consumer. After all, it is in order to serve the consumer that the industry exists. There has, perhaps, been too much emphasis in the past on the running of air services for their own sake. At the same time, however, the consumer can only be served if the industry is viable, and the advantages that competition can bring to the consumer have to be weighed carefully against the hard facts of airline economics.
All our airlines are, in one way, or another, in competition with each other, but the nature of that competition is often not fully understood. Over the years people, both inside and outside the industry, have tended to see this competition in terms of a fight between the Air Corporations and the independents for the right to operate scheduled services.
To an increasing extent, however, this way of seeing it is likely to be misleading. The Edwards Committee rendered us all a great service by pointing out that the nature of the market is changing, and slowly but increasingly the implications of these changes are being realised, not only in this country but in the United States and elsewhere. To a growing extent the real competitive battle today and in the next few years will be the fight between scheduled and charter services for the bulk travel market, even though that market is only part of the total. Nevertheless, a great network of scheduled air services must be maintained. It is one of the foundations of modern commerce needed by all countries and by this country perhaps more than most. It should not, and need not, be disturbed by the growth of bulk travel, but it is in that market that the future

growth of the industry will mainly be found.
There is in fact relatively little direct competition between British carriers on scheduled service routes, nor can there be. On international routes they compete mainly with foreign carriers and on domestic routes they compete mainly with surface transport, which, as is noticeable in the past week, is now fighting back.
There are two essential conditions which must be satisfied before it makes sense to licence two British scheduled carriers to compete with each other on an international route. First, the traffic must be heavy enough and, second, our bilateral agreement with the other countries concerned, for the exchange of traffic rights, must allow a second British carrier to be designated on terms that would allow a reasonable expectation that the British share of the market would be increased.
The fact is that there are relatively few such routes. As the White Paper points out, it is mainly on routes to the United States that a second British carrier might be newly designated with advantage at this time. But this is the very area where international competition is at its fiercest—competition both with foreign scheduled carriers and with charter services—and any independent airline that is licensed to serve these routes in competition, not only with B.O.A.C. but with everybody else, too, must without question have the very considerable skill and resources that will be necessary if it is to make a successful go of it.
This is the reality that we have to deal with, and it is this reality that led the Government to reach two of their main conclusions. First, we accepted that there could be advantages in licensing a second British carrier on the North Atlantic, provided it was strong enough. We set out in paragraph 33 of the White Paper the criteria that would have to be satisfied before a licence is given. They are tough criteria, but whoever gets the licence is in for a tough time and, as the Edwards Committee said, there is no use sending a boy to do a man's job. Secondly, we said that we would welcome a merger of independent airlines that would strengthen the industry.
Two years ago some of the independent airlines applied for licences to run scheduled services across the Atlantic.


The Air Transport Licensing Board rejected the applications, wisely as events have shown, because one has since collapsed and the other has, pleasingly, considerably strengthened its position. That is Caledonian. The A.T.L.B. did, however, give a very broad hint that if a stronger application was presented by a combination of airlines it might be granted. That is what the Edwards Committee meant by a "second force" and what we meant in the White Paper. As it became possible to open up new routes or introduce a second carrier on old ones such an airline would command consideration. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said the Government were quite sincere in what they said about this in the White Paper. I have said that our independent airlines are a national asset. We should like to see that asset used to the best national advantage. We think that the best national advantage would flow from an amalgamation that would result in an independent airline strong enough to compete on the North Atlantic. If it can hold its own there, it can hold its own anywhere. But, at the same time, we have got to be satisfied that it is strong enough.
That is why the Government will not say to anybody, "If you get together with so-and-so, you will be the second-force airline". We want to see what the airline looks like first. The proof of a pudding is in the eating and the proof of a merger is in the airline that results. It is for much the same reason that we are not attracted by the proposition that any existing airline by itself be labelled "the second force". Experience in running scheduled services is not enough. Successful experience of the United States market is also needed, and incidentally, so is the right attitude towards industrial relations.
The hon. Gentlemen opposite ask how a combination of independent airlines can achieve the necessary strength if they are not given more scheduled services to fly. I have been reading the comments of the hon. Gentleman in The Times, in letters, articles and broadcasts and this is one of the points he has consistently made.

Mr. Corfield: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to give a single reference when

I have called for extra routes for B.O.A.C. in anything that I have written.

Mr. Mason: This is one of the general charges that has been made.

Mr. Onslow: Withdraw.

Mr. Mason: I may have mixed one or two comments up; I may be wrong.

Mr. Corfield: Mr. Corfield rose

Mr. Mason: If the hon. Gentleman says that I have picked it up wrongly, I withdraw. There is this argument—and we ought to get it out of the way because Edwards dealt with it, and we deal with it in the White Paper—that the independent airlines can only achieve the necessary strength if they could be given more scheduled services.
I have already suggested this afternoon that this argument is symptomatic of the thinking of the past rather than of the present and future, mainly because, as I have tried to explain, the real growth is in the bulk travel area.
The fact is that no independent airline, or combination of airlines, could be given a very rapid and extensive increase in its scheduled service network without taking routes away from someone else, and that someone else must be one or both of the Air Corporations. I find this a very difficult proposition to justify, on grounds either of sense or of need.
As the White Paper says, we do not rule out some rationalisation of airlines' route networks under the supervision of the Civil Aviation Authority, where this is in the national interest. Rationalisation in that sense could be of benefit to both or all of the airlines concerned in it. But the tidying up of route networks is a very different thing from taking a large block of routes away from one airline and giving it to another, such as the whole of B.O.A.C.'s African network, which is what B.U.A. originally asked for. That is ridiculous in the extreme.
The Edwards Committee suggested that some transfers of routes would be desirable, although it made it clear that in its view a viable network could be built up on considerably less than B.U.A. had proposed. We are talking about routes that B.O.A.C. has built up over the years. A great deal of the taxpayers' money has been invested in them. If they are profitable, and that is why


B.U.A. wanted them, then they are the basis on which B.O.A.C. can expand into new markets. There would be no gain to our earnings of foreign currency by taking these routes away from B.O.A.C. and there could be a loss if B.O.A.C. were weakened as a result. I cannot believe that a wholesale transfer such as B.U.A. has sought, would make any sort of sense. The White Paper makes it clear that there has been too much fragmentation of our national effort in the past and we shall not strengthen it now by carving up the strongest airline we have.
Now as to the need. I come back to the question of the changing nature of airline competition. We stand on the threshold of a major expansion of long-haul bulk travel and especially of long-haul inclusive tours where, as the White Paper makes clear, the time is approaching for a reappraisal of our pricing policies. Nobody at this time can predict what shares of the bulk travel market will be taken by scheduled and charter services respectively. All I can predict with reasonable confidence is that, in the world as a whole, as has already happened in Europe and on the North Atlantic, bulk travel is likely to increase its share substantially, and we want British airlines to be well to the fore in developing this traffic.
There is ample room for a combination of independent carriers to achieve the scale that is needed for strength, without the acquisition of any more scheduled routes that may come its way through dual designation and such new routes as become ripe for development from time to time as the market grows. If an airline says it must have more scheduled services in the world of the '70s it is not because it can only expand in this way, but because it prefers to expand in this way and, as I have tried to suggest, this may well be symptomatic of outmoded thinking.
It is for these reasons that we said, in paragraph 31 of the White Paper, that there should be no attempt to lay down, in quantitative terms, a hard and fast share for each sector. Nobody can be sure today what the future balance will be. That is why the prudent airline will engage in its business in whatever terms will best enable it to keep abreast of market changes. That is why it is

right that B.E.A. should now be entering the charter market, so that it can allocate its resources flexibly to the best advantage as the total market for bulk travel develops. That is why the Government do not propose to erect fences between one part of the market and another.
Our aim throughout is to strengthen the industry, at home and abroad. At home the industry has been weakened by fragmentation and, to an increasing extent, by offering services that are too elaborate. We aim to put this right by amalgamations and by rationalisation and, if this does not prove sufficient, then by subsidy too, where an air service is shown to make a real contribution to regional economic and social development. Overseas, where the great bulk of the industry's business lies, we aim to strengthen it in every way we can. In the public sector, we propose to set up an Airways Board whose task will be to strengthen B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in every way, including all form of co-ordination up to and including complete merger if that turns out to be in the national interest.
The other main thing that the Government will do to strengthen the industry is to set up a Civil Aviation Authority that will bring together all aspects of the regulation of the industry under a single roof, other than those for which Ministers must remain directly responsible to Parliament—the formation of policy, the primary responsibility for the conduct of international negotiations, the control of the public amenity, and the investigation of accidents. By bringing the various regulatory functions together in this way, we hope to establish a body that will build up a breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the industry such as will enable it to guide and assist the industry's development in the best possible way. Under the broad guidance of a statement of Government policy, which it will be bound to observe, the Authority will have a considerable discretion in its day-to-day decisions, and our intention is that it should be left to get on with its job.
I have explained at some length what the Government's policy is and the reasons for it. Let me now turn to the events which have occasioned this debate. The Government's policy is, and remains,


to welcome the consolidation of the independent sector of the industry through amalgamations that will strengthen it, in pursuit of the objectives set out in the White Paper and provided that the conditions set out in the White Paper are satisfied. But we have no intention of forcing any particular merger upon the airlines concerned if they are not willing to act voluntarily.
My Department was aware that, after the publication of the Edwards Report and again immediately after the appearance of the White Paper, discussions had taken place between British and Commonwealth and Caledonian on the possibility of a merger. My Minister of State and officials met the chairmen of both companies before Christmas in this connection and, despite what had been said in the White Paper on this point, we were asked by B.U.A. for assurances that substantial transfers of B.O.A.C.'s routes would be granted. This appeared to be an essential element in the discussions.
Subsequently, in late January, this year, I was approached by B.O.A.C., which sought approval for its purchase of British United Airways. The initiative—and I make this clear in view of what the hon. Member said—for this came from the British and Commonwealth Shipping Company, which is the principal shareholder in B.U.A. I therefore invited the chairman of British and Commonwealth to see me early in February. The clear impression that he then gave me was that there was no real possibility that a merger between B.U.A. and Caledonian would take place.
As I understood him, this was because he saw B.U.A. as predominantly an operator of scheduled services and so in a different category from the other independent airlines, which are mainly in charter and bulk travel. For this reason he saw nothing worth while resulting from a merger with any other group of independents. He wished B.U.A. to expand as an operator of scheduled services and he did not think that the idea of a second force airline was practical because achieving it would involve depriving B.O.A.C. of routes it already had. He thought that the sale of B.U.A. to B.O.A.C. was therefore the course that would best serve the national interest.
In reply to a direct question from me as to what he would do if B.O.A.C. were not allowed to buy B.U.A., he did not mention a merger with Caledonian as an alternative course. For reasons that I have explained, although I can understand his point of view, I cannot agree that the acquisition of scheduled services is the only or the right way in which expansion should be sought; nor can I give guarantees that would result in the weakening of B.O.A.C.
In the light of what was said to me, however, I concluded that the prospect of a combination of airlines emerging on the lines envisaged in the White Paper no longer existed, at least so far as B.U.A. was concerned. There was thus no reason of policy to prevent the acquisition of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C. from taking place, provided that the financial arrangements were satisfactory. It was a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. I also had it in mind that if, as it intended, B.O.A.C. continued for a period to run B.U.A. as a going concern, the jobs of B.U.A's. 3,000 employees would not be put at risk.
On 5th March, I authorised an announcement confirming that this transaction was acceptable in principle, subject to further discussion of the financial arrangements. Very quickly thereafter two important developments took place. First, it was brought to my knowledge that, despite the impression that I had been given to the contrary, British and Commonwealth had been in real and close discussion with Caledonian Airways right up to the time of the announcement by my Department. Evidently, I had been seriously misled in supposing that there was no prospect that a merger could take place. Secondly, Caledonian made certain applications to the A.T.L.B. which materially affected the appraisal of any investment by B.O.A.C., and announced that it was preparing a rival offer to purchase B.U.A.
In these new circumstances, it is clear that my proper course is to withhold approval from the investment proposal put to me by B.O.A.C. until the situation has been clarified.

Mr. Orme: Shocking!

Mr. Mason: It is no good my hon. Friend saying that it is shocking when


he has probably not even read the White Paper on aviation policy. It remains our policy to encourage the independent airlines to form a stronger element in the industry by amalgamation, whether that takes place by way of merger or purchase. One of the dangers in civil aviation today is fragmentation of the industry into many small airlines. We have to do something more positive to try to get them together. If we can encourage them to amalgamate so that they are stronger financially, those who work in the airlines will have a more secure future.
I am told on all sides that there is a genuine possibility of this merger happening, and I want to allow ample opportunity for B.U.A. and Caledonian, which are the two airlines named in the Edwards Report as forming the most likely nucleus of an appropriate combination, to resume their negotiations and take them to a conclusion. I trust that I have made it abundantly clear that there is no intention of carving up B.O.A.C. to facilitate the process, but I firmly believe that the industry will be strengthened if the negotiations are successful.
Accordingly, I have asked the chairmen of British and Commonwealth and of Caledonian to resume their negotiations on the basis of merger or, failing that, of take-over, and to pursue them with all possible speed and sincerity. I have drawn their particular attention to the need to reduce to a minimum the period of uncertainty for the staff of British United Airways.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South argued that it would be a misuse of B.O.A.C.'s borrowing power to buy B.U.A.

Mr. Lubbock: It appears that British and Commonwealth refused to give figures to Caledonian on which to base the offer. As the right hon. Gentleman has provided a breathing space, will he make sure that Caledonian is able to obtain all the information required?

Mr. Mason: British and Commonwealth is now free to release whatever figures it wants to give to Caledonian. That was made clear in talks before I came into the Chamber.

Mr. Onslow: What the right hon. Gentleman has said will be welcomed in the country and in some parts of the House, although not necessarily by his hon. Friends. Can he give us his idea of the time scale for these negotiations? Does he expect that if they require legislation, it will be introduced in this Parliament?

Mr. Mason: I do not think legislation would be required for a merger or a take-over. I do not want to lay down a time scale, for I do not want to be subject to a demarcation dispute if there is trouble.
The suggestion about B.O.A.C.'s misusing its borrowing powers if it wanted to buy B.U.A. is nonsense. B.O.A.C.'s borrowing powers are intended to enable it to borrow funds for capital purposes within the limits set by Parliament from time to time, without further specifying what particular purposes. That is the legal position. I have taken borrowing powers Bills through the House in respect of many nationalised industries, and I know that we do not specify any particular purposes. The important requirement is that B.O.A.C.'s investments should be approved by me, whether they are financed by borrowing or in any other way. In fact, B.O.A.C. would not need to borrow from the Government to purchase B.U.A. The borrowing limit needed to be increased last December, and will need to be further increased this summer for a quite different reason, not because B.O.A.C. is short of money but because of the Government requirement that the purchase of American aircraft should be financed by borrowing in the United States. So the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, and has not fully comprehended the Act.

Mr. Corfield: I am well aware of the legal position, probably better so than the right hon. Gentleman. If he refers to col. 373 of HANSARD of 9th December, he will see clearly that we were told with all honesty by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State precisely what the borrowing was for. I reckon that to tell the House, "We want to buy sweets", and then to buy atom bombs, or anything else that is quite different, is not playing the game.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is trying to press me through


what my right hon. Friend said. It is always true that when a borrowing powers Bill comes before the House the Opposition press for, and the Government try to give, as much information as possible on what the money is for, but they cannot specify because there will be many needs during the course of a year's borrowing that one can never foresee. If B.O.A.C. wishes to buy B.U.A. it does not have to come back to the House for borrowing powers to do so, because the special borrowing powers that it has are quite satisfactory.
I have referred this afternoon to the legislation that we shall introduce. The preparation of this legislation is necessarily a complex and time-consuming task. I cannot say today precisely when I shall be able to lay a Bill before the House. This must depend on the availability of time and we have a full programme. I can assure all those who take an interest in the subject, however, that there is no deliberate procrastination on my part. Nobody could have seriously expected a Bill of this kind to come out before the spring at the earliest. Legislation is being prepared and the task is well advance.
Meanwhile we must continue to operate within the framework that exists. We must take the decisions that have to he taken as and when they arise, and we must measure our policies against the realities of the situation as they develop. If, at the end of the day, a policy has to be abandoned because the facts have changed, this is something that has to be accepted. But, until that happens, I can assure the House once again that our policy is precisely and in all respects what we have said it is—and that is something more than hon. Gentlemen opposite could have said about their civil aviation policy at any time in their last 10 years.
The Motion before us makes two points. The first is that the establishment of a second-force airline should not be frustrated by the sale of B.U.A. to B.O.A.C. At the moment that proposal is on ice. We are giving the major independents a chance to come together and prove that they can fill the rôle which the White Paper envisages. That is a decision that we took before the terms of the Motion were known to me.
The second point is that the establishment of a second-force airline should not be frustrated by the threat of industrial action. That point also falls. This threat—which could have put 3,000 jobs at risk—is being ignored. I have made it clear that the Government have not been, are not being, and will not be influenced by such ill-considered and improper pressures. If B.U.A. and Caledonian succeed in coming together—and other airlines might come in later—not only the 3,000 employees of B.U.A. but all the employees concerned in civil aviation in the independent sector should be able to look to the future with greater assurance.
The Motion, as we now see, was an impetuous act. It has brought the matter into a higher level of political controversy than before. It has now been proved to have no substance in it, and it has proved to be meaningless. The decision that I have announced today was taken before the Motion was even tabled.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for his statement, which will be welcomed by the civil air transport industry and all those who work in that great industry. It shows a commendable change of mind on his part, and also shows that he remembered what his policy was as set out in the White Paper.
However, the right hon. Gentleman has put me in the unfortunate position of having to revise what I was going to say. I shall do my best in these changed and happier circumstances not to let the side down.
I do not want to attack B.O.A.C. It now has a remarkable record. It has an excellent modern fleet of aircraft and is the second largest international air carrier in the world, second only to Pan American. It is probably the greatest earner of foreign currency from the carriage of passengers and freight.
It will be useful to remind the House of the scale of the fleet B.O.A.C. possesses, because we must compare it with B.U.A.'s and see whether much good will come out of a mix of the two fleets. B.O.A.C. has 18 707s, six 707 cargo aircraft, 17 Super VC10s and 11 ordinary VC10s, a total of 52 aircraft. That is the size of fleet that I think Edwards said was about right for the long-haul operator today. B.O.A.C. has


on order a further three 707 cargo aircraft and 12 747 Jumbo Jets, the first of which is to be delivered in the middle of next month. That is an aircraft which may revolutionise air transport in the world, and certainly will do so across the Atlantic. It may conceivably bring a surplus of passenger seats to the air transport world.
Obviously, the decision about buying those aircraft and deciding the generation of aircraft to be bought after the 747 is a highly difficult one for any major carrier. But at present B.O.A.C. appears to have the right fleet mix, and its profit record over the past four or five years has been remarkably good, showing a return of, I think, about 17 per cent. on its capital. It is a healthy and successful international carrier of which we may all be proud, even though we should remember that the Government wrote off £110 million of its debts to put it in its present position.
It may be wondered why, since B.O.A.C. seems to have the right fleet and the right routes, it needed B.U.A., why it was ever really interested in the deal and why the negotiations that started in December between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. were allowed to continue when the Government's own White Paper implied that it was the Government's intention to keep B.U.A. within the private sector. It is all very well for us to be told today that we on the Opposition benches knew more about B.U.A.'s dealings with Caledonian than the Government. But, when the White Paper talked about a second-force airline, why did the Government allow the talks between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. to go on without saying at some stage, "Do you not realise that if this deal goes through it will destroy the policy we have set down?"
The Government said clearly in the White Paper that there was a place for both publicly- and privately-owned airlines, a point which has been made again by the President of the Board of Trade today. They agreed that there should be no attempt to lay down in quantitative terms a hard and fast share for each sector. The White Paper extols competition, a point on which we on this side of the House all agree. It makes the point of the value of rivalry between airlines to create the best airline efficiency, which is again what we are

all interested in. In paragraph 32 of the White Paper the Government go so tar as to say:
… the benefits of competition should be actively pursued wherever the practical considerations allow.
Yet when this same policy is put up against a deal between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. suddenly the arguments fly out of the window. This is why one is happy that the President of the Board of Trade recognised that his own policy was in grave danger if he gave a blessing to this deal without giving the independents the opportunity for which they asked to see about the possibility of their being allowed to form the second-force airline.
The opening words of paragraph 39 of the White Paper say:
The Government would welcome the emergence, by amalgamation, of such a new airline if it resulted in the strengthening of the industry as a whole and contributed to the realisation of the Government's policy objectives. … A new airline of this kind must evolve progressively, proving itself at each stage. It is for the airlines to decide, in the exercise of their commercial judgment and in the light of market forces, whether and in what ways to come together.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Why does not the hon. Gentleman relate this to the decision of B.U.A., which decided in its commercial judgment to make an approach to B.O.A.C. to find out whether B.O.A.C. was interested in buying it? Does the hon. Gentleman criticise this? Does not it square with what is said in the White Paper?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: We are talking about the Government's policy, not the policy of B.O.A.C. or B.U.A. We are talking about what the Government have said that they want to see happen. If one is arguing that the Government have no civil air transport policy, that is another subject. I submit that they have a policy, which is clearly set out in the White Paper, and I am quoting that policy to the House to show where the Government stand. In the light of those remarks, it seems incredible hat this deal was ever allowed to get off the ground, as it strikes at the very root and branch of the policy to which the President of the Board of Trade has now returned, for which I give him my personal sincere thanks.
The White Paper, unlike the Edwards Report, makes it clear, and one may think


reasonably, that the Government did not intend to give away any of the B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. routes to help in the creation of a second-force airline. That may be an arguable point on this side of the House, but it is perfectly reasonable from the Government's policy position. But, surely, the only interpretation to be placed on those words is that the second force was to be an airline with some scheduled services, charter routes and inclusive tours, etc. Therefore, if the Government did not give routes from the nationalised airlines, the only way in which those routes could be found was by allowing the airlines already existing in the private sector to be created into one much larger airline.
Again, we appear to have returned to that position, and again I ask why this conversation between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. was allowed in the first instance. Will the President of the Board of Trade say that he did not know what B.O.A.C. was doing because it did not tell him, as apparently he did not know what B.U.A. was doing with Caledonian Airways?
I do not want to continue too strongly with this attack on the President of the Board of Trade; I wish to raise another point about the allocation of routes. The bids which have now been made by Caledonian and Laker call in question the whole deal between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A., because if the Air Transport Licensing Board decides that B.U.A.'s routes should be allocated, B.O.A.C. would find itself in the position of buying second-hand aircraft which in my opinion do not mix with its present fleet. Conceivably the VC10s might be used, but I find it difficult to see how the BAC111 would mix with the B.O.A.C. fleet.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Does not my hon. Friend agree that airlines can get into difficulties by having too big a mix of aircraft? To operate properly, they must ensure that their aircraft fleet is brought into line, with one or two types of aircraft to do the job that they have in mind, rather than having a mix, which leads to tremendous difficulties.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is an extremely good point, which makes one raise ones eyebrows and wonder whether the intention of the deal was that it should be merely between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A.,

or whether it was the first stage of what Flight ruefully calls "a British Aeroflot."
The routes possessed by B.U.A.—domestic trunk services between London-Glasgow, London-Edinburgh, London-Belfast—are clearly not B.O.A.C. routes, and would, therefore, rightly go to B.E.A., as indeed would its European routesLondon-Rotterdam, London-Amsterdam. Will the Minister say whether those routes would be likely to continue to be flown by B.O.A.C. or whether he would agree with me that those routes would more likely go to B.E.A. if this deal went through? The routes that B.O.A.C. is interested in are long-haul routes to East, West and North Africa, and that old chestnut the South American routes that B.O.A.C. was so unsuccessful in operating, albeit for all sorts of extenuating circumstances, but which B.U.A. ran, and ran successfully, at a profit.
I raise this question because, had this deal come off, as it appeared that it would come off, and as most of us expected to hear this afternoon that it would come off, there was rather more in it than a pure deal between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. It would have marked the end of the private scheduled carrier in the true sense of that word because no doubt B.O.A.C. would have taken the long-haul routes from B.U.A. and farmed out the European and domestic routes to B.E.A. That flies directly in opposition to the Government's stated policy, and cannot in any conceivable way be said to strengthen competition or airline efficiency.
The Government's White Paper states that the reallocation of routes should be the job of the C.A.A. This is probably a good argument, but we seem to be putting the cart before the horse, as it appears that the Government's White Paper is not to be the policy, but that we shall let things happen piecemeal so that the reallocation of routes will not be the responsibility of C.A.A. because they will already have been reallocated. Surely, if the Government's policy makes sense, we should have taken the Bill first, and from there have moved to the re-organisation of civil air transport. Why should this route allocation be allowed to happen before the Government have set up the C.A.A. since they said that they wanted it to reallocate routes?
I have already mentioned the point about the Government refusing to give up B.O.A.C.s and B.E.A.s routes to make a second-force airline. But if the deal goes through, and B.O.A.C. purchases B.U.A., it will mean that the Government will be safeguarding the corporation and robbing the independents of any chance ever again to be an effective force in British aviation. B.U.A. argue—it may not be a very strong argument—that the reason behind its decision to sell out was that it could get no clear indication from the Government that it would get any new routes and that, as a viable alternative scheduled carrier, it had no worthwhile future that would give it the opportunity to get the investment which a private company must get if it is to have a future and, indeed, if it is to buy the expensive modern aircraft that it will soon require. Thank goodness for Caledonian and Laker. Thank goodness for the fuss they have made, which has brought this deal out into the open, and persuaded the President of the Board of Trade to let them see what opportunity there is for creating a second-force airline, which the Government have said they want and which they have been forced to say they still desire.
I conclude by quoting what was said by Flight which seems to sum up the matter:
It remains the responsibility of government to ensure that competition preserves the quality of service to the public.
That is what this debate is about. It is about the policy of the Government, which seemed to want to follow that line but which appeared to be nearly destroyed before it was allowed to start. It is a policy which we on this side of the House believe in. We want service to the public. We want the competitive goad that brings efficiency. We want a strong civil air transport organisation in this country and we do not believe that a second-force airline will do anything but good and will strengthen and improve the competitive efficiency of the corporations.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Robert Howarth: This debate has proved what many of us who are interested in aviation have felt for some time, and that is that we should have had a debate some time ago on the Edwards Report and the White Paper on civil air transport. Unfor-

tunately, we are reacting to events rather than trying to direct them in the way in which we should like to see them go. It is a pity and a matter of great regret to me that we are not today discussing the Second Reading of a Bill to set up the Civil Aviation Authority. It would have been a rather useful way to spend a Wednesday afternoon in the House.
Having listened to what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said about the prospects of legislation arising from the Government's White Paper, I hope that the Minister of State in winding up the debate will be able to be a little more specific about legislation. I understand there is some doubt whether the whole of the White Paper will be implemented in the current Session of Parliament. If there is to be a choice as to which part of the White Paper is to be implemented, then there is no doubt in my mind that the Civil Aviation Authority should receive top priority.
I wish briefly to comment on the charges made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), in moving the censure Motion on the Government. He omitted a number of important points from his speech. One was the fact that the owners of B.U.A. are free partners and are able to go where they wish with their airline if they are looking for a buyer. It was not on the initiative of B.O.A.C. that these negotiations were undertaken. That, as I understand it, is the position today.
In fact the decision announced by my right hon. Friend today does not alter the situation as it existed a couple of weeks ago. If the negotiations with the independents do not succeed, I assume that the B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. merger could still take place if the other negotiations collapsed for reasons that everyone will understand.
Another point upon which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, South did not, enlarge for obvious reasons, was the point about competition, on which I intervened in his speech. In the air transport business there is fierce competition for the corporations. My right hon. Friend made the point that domestically there is also fierce competition. An example lies in the new competition facing B.E.A. When one looks at the international routes into Europe and tries to appreciate how fierce


is the competition for B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., to talk about monopoly in such circumstances without spelling out the true situation tends to mislead people.
The hon. Gentleman also ignored the rôle of the Air Transport Licensing Board. My right hon. Friend rightly reminded him of the decisions of previous Conservative Governments in setting up the Board and then rejecting some of its major decisions. It is odd that we should have these criticisms from Conservative spokesmen in view of their record in the early 'sixties when they did not by any means appear to be the champion of the independents as they now set themselves up to be.
I hope that B.U.A. and its owners will now feel able to reveal all the facts about negotiations between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. so that they will be known to those who are also making a bid for the airline. Equally, I trust that B.O.A.C. will be allowed to use its commercial judgment as to the value of B.U.A. to the corporation's operations. We do not know the figure arrived at, but I assume that B.O.A.C. at the moment regards the figure which has been negotiated as reasonable for the purchase of B.U.A.—a sum of money which I assume can be obtained easily by the use of some of the substantial operating surplus of about £22 million made by B.O.A.C. in the last financial year.
There is no doubt that B.O.A.C. has the money to purchase B.U.A. if this merger goes ahead. But I hope—and my right hon. Friend's announcement today does not change the situation—that B.O.A.C. will have the commercial freedom to continue with its possible purchase of B.U.A. should the other possibilities open to the owners of B.U.A. collapse. From what my right hon. Friend has said, and from what I know of his views, I am sure that this is the case.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, not unnaturally seized on the rather incautious and unhelpful statements of a certain trade union leader, who will no doubt have his defenders today in this debate. Knowing the gentleman involved, I was a little taken aback that he was able to make such a claim without knowing the views of those employees of B.U.A. I gather that we will be hearing

something about this later in the debate. A meeting has been held today, and I am sure that if one of my hon. Friends is able to speak in the debate he will tell the House about it.
I do not think Mr. Clive Jenkins' statement was at all helpful. I can only hope that his Welsh fervour is restrained in the interests of a fair settlement from the point of view of British aviation and of those employed in the corporations and the independents.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman must be careful in what he says about Welsh fervour, since he has a Welsh Minister of State sitting on the Front Bench.

Mr. Howarth: We have yet to hear my hon. Friend. No doubt he will collect a lot of material on which to reply as time goes on.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for his thoughtful intervention on my behalf. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) has been indulging in one of the many myths about the Welsh people for which the late Matthew Arnold was responsible. We are not all fervent, always.

Mr. Howarth: I am just an Englishman, and I know that we have these Welshmen here. We also have an Australian. Then we have a number of Irishmen, just to add to our problems.
I was about to comment on my right hon. Friend's statement about how he saw the rôle of the corporations and the independents in the current decade. I can endorse what he said, having myself had the privilege of travelling extensively throughout many parts of the world. I have taken a great interest in the subject and I know that both corporations have an outstanding reputation. Naturally, they are subject to criticism. It would be surprising if they were not. Overall, their reputation is good. B.E.A. carries 20 per cent. of Europe's traffic. That is an outstanding achievement by a public corporation. It is a leader in many technical achievements, such as automatic landing, and has first-class aircraft. Its ability to win and hold new routes is there for all to see.
B.O.A.C. has gone through a very difficult period, and there are still problems besetting it. However, those are not for debate today. Certainly it is a very profitable airline, accepting that a great deal of money has been written off which has given it a good start. There is no doubt that it is now making a good return on the public investment which has been made, and any move which threatened that great investment would be unacceptable not only to hon. Members on this side of the House but to most people in the country.

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is the way in which we are heading

Mr. Howarth: I see no reason to think from what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that that is his intention.
My right hon. Friend paid tribute to a number of the independents. I know the accomplishments of Caledonian, which is one of the independents involved in these events, and I can only add to my right hon. Friend's praise. It is an outstanding independent airline. In a very difficult market, it has been able to win a great share of long-distance charters. The only difficulty in this connection which my right hon. Friend should note is that, whereas my right hon. Friend said that the independents could probably continue to expand as matters stand at the moment, in the case of a long-haul charter company like Caledonian that is not necessarily so. There are restrictions on charters across the North Atlantic which result in Caledonian having to turn away traffic. I have been informed that, in the current year, it has turned away many millions of dollars worth of business because of the restrictions placed on the operation of charters across the Atlantic to which it is subject because it does not have scheduled services across the North Atlantic.

Mr. Onslow: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the restrictions are imposed upon such airlines by the policies of the Board of Trade? Should not that be taken into account?

Mr. Howarth: I did not think that that was the case. I may be informed otherwise in the course of the debate. As I understand it, these are international

agreements. Because an airline like Caledonian is not a scheduled carrier, it is obliged to take as many people one way as travel the other way, and that has limited its expansion because obviously it can obtain more American passengers.
My right hon. Friend referred to current developments and made an important point about the growth of group travel. Certainly such developments can be seen to be very important to the scheduled operators. It does not only concern B.O.A.C. but all the scheduled carriers, particularly across the North Atlantic and, if it has not done so already, I assume that it will soon extend to the Pacific. The scheduled carriers are worried about the success of companies like Caledonian and many others in carrying groups of people over these routes at greatly reduced rates.
I do not share my right hon. Friend's confidence that this is a naturally developing pattern. Certainly there is an obvious area of disagreement between the scheduled and charter operators, and I am not clear how it will develop in the future. I notice with interest that B.O.A.C. has begun to develop forms of group travel which offer travel across the Atlantic at greatly reduced rates. It will be interesting to see how matters develop in the next few years. I know that there has been discussion amongst the scheduled carriers as to how to meet the competition.
I do not know whether the Opposition are reconsidering their censure Motion. Before coming to the current dispute, perhaps I might comment briefly on the Edwards Committee's Report by way of introduction.
The Edwards Report contained an excellent proposal for the setting up of a Civil Aviation Authority, and I gather that it is generally welcomed. I am very keen to see it done as soon as possible, and it would be a great disappointment to me if it was not set up in the next six months. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will look at that recommendation very closely with a view to bringing forward the necessary legislation in the near future to set up a Civil Aviation Authority. Unfortunately, this is not the debate in which we can go into the subject in detail, but it is of vital importance to British aviation that this body is set up as soon as possible.
In addition to that recommendation, the Edwards Committee proposed the setting up of a Air Holdings Board. I do not favour that, but unfortunately it was endorsed by the White Paper. The intention was that it would oversee the operations of the two corporations. In the past six months, I have thought about it a great deal and discussed it widely with all those involved, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a quite unnecessary step at this stage. As my right hon. Friend has said, the corporations are doing an excellent job. They are developing in the face of fierce foreign competition. On the basis that, if something is working well, why not leave it alone, I do not see why it is necessary to set up such a body. I have read the arguments advanced by the Edwards Committee, but I remain unconvinced.
The two corporations have established a workmanlike chairmen's committee which, we are promised, will bring fruits to both corporations as a result of joint working in areas where they can come together. I hope that they press ahead with this and that it works out as they hope.
The main difference between the Edwards Report and the Government's White Paper concerned the creation of a second force which was outlined by Edwards but with which the White Paper was in almost complete disagreement. The Edwards Report suggests the somewhat artificial and unnatural formation of a second force consisting not only of B.U.A. and Caledonian, but also with a minority holding by the Air Holdings Board. It seems a strange attempt to get the best of both worlds.
My view is that we should have the Corporations. I should also welcome a successful independent area if it brings a return to the nation. In other words, if it strengthens British aviation, I am all in favour of there being a successful, thriving independent force. But as the Edwards Report put it, I thought it a most impracticable suggestion. Events since publication of the Edwards Report have tended to confirm my view.
I note that the discussions which have been going on between Caledonian and B.U.A., until the spur of these events, came to nothing. I am not surprised.
The White Paper, outlining the opportunities for a second force, abandoned the idea of a shotgun marriage between the independents with a minority holding by the Air Holdings Board, and left it to the independents to try to work out their own arrangements for mergers to give them the kind of basis outlined in paragraph 33 of the White Paper which covered this point about the opportunities which could be given to a second force by the Civil Aviation Authority under strict criteria, listing among those criteria the obvious point that applicants for scheduled services must be viable, strong companies capable of undertaking operations in a fiercely competitive environment. I agree with this paragraph. It seems to set out criteria—I have not listed them all—which, if the Civil Aviation Authority was able to enforce them quite strongly, would be in the interests not only of British aviation, but also of the nation.
I had hoped that we might have seen the operation of this policy later this year with the formation of the Civil Aviation Authority. This leads me to the point at issue today, namely, the events which broke when it was announced that B.O.A.C. had been approached by the owners of B.U.A. with a view to purchasing this independent airline. I was surprised. I had assumed that discussions had taken place between Caledonian and B.U.A. and possibly other independents. I do not regard my right hon. Friend's statement as basically changing anything today. My right hon. Friend made clear that the Government's view is set out in the White Paper. If my hon. Friends have read the White Paper they will not be surprised that this is the Government's view.
I assume that if the current negotiations, for which my right hon. Friend said he was now prepared to give time to establish, if they had any validity, fail, then presumably there is nothing to stop the B.U.A. take-over going ahead, as was possible a week ago. I hope that the attempts being made to set up a viable second force will not be on the basis of a carve up of, say, the B.O.A.C. routes in Africa. This was one of the proposals that B.U.A. put forward—[Interruption.] Why should it be that way? I cannot foresee what can happen under future governments. I do not envisage a change of


government. I do not see why my right hon. Friend should depart from the policy outlined in the White Paper.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friends should not be surprised at the difference between themselves and the Government. The situation is that the hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman refers seem to disagree with the Government's policy almost as often as we on this side.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: That is not true of me.

Mr. Howarth: That is up to my hon. Friends. They are free agents, just as B.U.A. is free to make an approach to B.O.A.C.
I hope that we will soon be able to get back to what I thought was the reasonably steady path of progress outlined in the White Paper. I realise that the developments under discussion now are outside the control of this House so far as they relate to discussions between the independents. But we shall obviously want assurances, if it appears that certain independents are going to make a realistic bid for B.U.A., that this is a bid to continue operating B.U.A. and to ensure the employment of these people in civil aviation. I have not much confidence in some of the characters who have surfaced in independent aviation since this news broke. Needless to say, I exclude from those remarks, Caledonian.
I hope that this problem will soon be resolved, that we shall have legislation before us shortly for the establishment of a Civil Aviation Authority, that we drop the idea of an Air Holdings Board, and that the Civil Aviation Authority will be operating by the end of the year along the lines of the criteria outlined in the White Paper.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) that it is a pity that this House has not had a debate on the Edwards Report or the White Paper. It is 10 months since the Edwards Report was published. I daresay that we would not be discussing these matters now had it not been for this crisis suddenly arising.
It is all the more a pity that the Tory Motion should be couched in such narrow terms and not attempt to give the House an opportunity of discussing the general issues raised by the Edwards Report and by the White Paper on the future relationship between the corporations, which account for 70 per cent. of the output of the air transport industry compared with 30 per cent. by the independents; the functions of the proposed Civil Aviation Authority, about which the hon. Member for Bolton, East is a great deal more enthusiastic than I. I will come back to that matter, because I think that we should examine the arguments for treating operational safety and airworthiness under the same heading as economic regulation of the industry. There is also the whole question of subsidies on certain domestic routes, and the need for co-ordination between domestic air services and other transport facilities available to the public.
I am sorry that the Tory Opposition are so blinkered by their determination to make party political capital out of every issue that comes up in the House that none of these matters have found a place in their Motion—[Interruption.] Of course, they are relevant to the situation of the private companies and, therefore, it is right for us to discuss them today.
I am sorry, too, that, instead of considering this problem of British United Airways calmly and objectively, the Tories have sought to raise the temperature and make it that much harder for us to get the right solution in the long run. I say to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) that his speech was a typical piece of Tory electioneering, such as we have come to expect from him.
I shall assume, as the hon. Member for Bolton, East does, that if no deal materialises between B.U.A. and Caledonian we shall come back to the question whether B.O.A.C. ought to be allowed to take over B.U.A. I shall assume, too, that the Government will find no reason to stand in the way of such a deal, since the Minister announced last week that in principle they were prepared to accept it, before they knew how far on the road Caledonian and B.U.A. had progressed in their discussions. It is still useful to examine the implications of that deal assuming that it goes through in the end and for the House to make up


its mind about what consequential steps might be taken as a result. I think that the Minister of State knows what my anxieties are in this respect.
The "second force" idea is not sacrosanct just because it is laid out in the Edwards Report and endorsed, with slight modifications, in the White Paper. One has to note that during the ten months since the Edwards Report there have been no amalgamations in the private sector, and that was one of the essential pre-conditions for the additional licences which were to be awarded to a second force; additional in the sense that they were to parallel routes already held by the corporations, and not taken away from them, as originaly proposed by Edwards.
We know that during the whole of those ten months negotiations were proceeding between B.U.A. and Caledonian, and the fact that they took such a long time and did not reach any conclusion shows that the problems inherent in merging two fundamentally different airlines were under-estimated last year by many of those who wanted to see it happen, including myself. The aircraft fleets of these two companies are entirely different. One operates largely scheduled services while the other has none at all, and I think that it is not unfair to say, in the light of events, that there were some directors, at least in British and Commonwealth, who could see no advantage in a merger before the Government were prepared to give the joint enterprise a substantial chunk of the corporation's route network.
To quote Flight, as another hon. Gentleman did earlier, it reminded its readers last week:
British United spoilt its own case somewhat by over-reacting to Edwards; the airline laid claim to a much bigger slice of B.O.A.C.'s network—the whole of Africa (in addition to the right to compete with B.O.A.C. on the North Atlantic)—than had been envisaged by the Committee.
I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that even after the White Paper was published the Chairman of British and Commonwealth was still asking him whether he would reverse the decision and give the combined enterprise some of the routes operated by B.O.A.C. The White Paper made it clear that the most that could be expected by a second force was what is called dual designation,

that is, it could be allowed to operate in parallel with one of the corporations where it could be shown that the Corporations' services would not be unduly impaired thereby, and where an increase in traffic would be secured to British aviation as a whole by allowing this second designation.
The White Paper said—and the right hon. Gentleman reminded us of this this afternoon—that that was most likely to happen on the North Atlantic routes because, under our agreement with the Americans, we are allowed to designate more than one carrier on those routes. I think that the American situation is probably unique in this respect. On the London to Paris route under our agreement with the French we can designate only one carrier, and if we choose to put on a second one the frequencies allotted to B.E.A. have to be correspondingly reduced. One remembers that when B.U.A. received a licence to operate to Genoa the Italian authorities insisted on a reduction in the number of flights which B.O.A.C. was permitted to operate through Rome. The question of dual designation must, in the first instance, be confined to the North Atlantic.
It was also made clear in the White Paper that the Civil Aviation Authority, which has yet to be established, and probably will not be during this Session—I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic in expecting a Bill to be introduced and to go through all its stages before the Summer Recess—would have the function of making any decisions which had to be made about parallel licensing. One can appreciate the difficulties which this policy has caused for the independents. If they are to operate on the North Atlantic routes in competition with many American airlines, as well as with B.O.A.C., they have to consider placing an order for wide bodied jets within the next year or eighteen months. They could hardly embark on such an ambitious investment programme, including not only jets, but the ancillary facilities for handling them at the terminals—one sees the enormous hangers which B.O.A.C. has put up at London Airport to deal with its 747s—without any guarantee that the necessary licences would be forthcoming.
The only alternative which I am not recommending, to the Government's policy is to say now that airline X would


be able to secure these licences when the time comes irrespective of whether the criteria laid down in the White Paper were satisfied. It would be rather inconsistent if the Government, having decided to establish the C.A.A., were then to pre-empt the most important decision which it would have to make in the first years of its existence, and that without considering the possible repercussions of such a decision, for instance, the financial viability of airline X to operate these services on the North Atlantic, because the worst that could happen would be for the licences to be granted, for the airline to start operating, and then to go bust. This would cause great damage to British aviation and to the prestige of British aviation, and would result in the loss of the jobs for perhaps thousands of people. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to make sure that the criteria set out in the White Paper are satisfied before these parallel licences are awarded.
The major independents had to consider whether, in the light of those circumstances, a merger made good commercial sense. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, there was never any question of the Government forcing unwilling partners to come together, because they have no power to do so. As the White Paper says in paragraph 39:
It is for the airlines to decide, in the exercise of their commercial judgment and in the light of market forces, whether and in what ways to come together.
I should have thought that that sentiment was acceptable to the Tory Opposition; that these decisions are better left to those who are running the airlines, rather than being made by people sitting in Whitehall who do not have that experience.

Mr. Burden: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, to assess the commercial viability of a sale or purchase, it is necessary in these days of costly re-equipment for a company to be sure that if it acquires another company at considerable loss there will be some possibility of getting routes and utilisation which will enable it to make a profit?

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know what the position would be if B.O.A.C. had been about to take over B.U.A. and the application by Caledonian to the

A.T.L.B. had still to be considered. It is a legal matter, on which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could advise us. I had always imagined that whoever took over B.U.A. would automatically acquire its routes as well. Apparently this is not so, or not necessarily so. I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the company's financial advisers would say to the board of directors, "The price must be conditional on these routes being allocated to the joint enterprise, and the price would have to be dropped to very much less than £9 million", or whatever the figure was, "if these routes were to be awarded to some other enterprise".
In any case, I was talking about the commercial judgment which had to be exercised by British and Commonwealth. Evidently, they came to the conclusion that a certain £9 million in their pockets was a better proposition than a gamble on future prospects. I do not intend to discuss the ethics of what British and Commonwealth have been up to—conducting negotiations simultaneously with B.O.A.C. and Caledonian and not informing Caledonian of what they were up to, and, perhaps even more extraordinary, positively misleading the President of the Board of Trade as to extent of their negotiations with Caledonian when the chairman saw him, as he explained this afternoon. I was even more astonished that the House took this statement so calmly, because it was a remarkable thing that he told us.
But we are not being asked to censure Mr. Anthony Cayzer and his fellow directors today. The proposition is that the Government, having, I think wisely, left the airline managements to make their own decisions, should now have stepped in and vetoed the rather unexpected solution which British and Commonwealth reached, on the grounds that Whitehall knows best. That is a rather curious doctrine for the Tory party to preach. Of course, if Caledonian had managed to come up with a better offer, equally there would be no call for the Government to interfere with it. I was delighted to have the right hon. Gentleman's reassurance on that.
We know that no such offer has been made, and I rather doubt that a price of much above £9 million could be justified to the shareholders and bankers who


have to find the money. At least there is some scope for rationalising the activities of B.U.A. and B.O.A.C., while the same could not be said, with any conviction, of B.U.A. and Caledonian. If Caledonian were looking at B.U.A. purely as an investment based on its existing profitability, they would have to take into account B.U.A.'s rather less than conservative depreciation policy without which the airline would have been only just in the black last year.
But, of course, it was impossible for Caledonian to form a judgment on any of these matters, so long as British and Commonwealth withheld the figures from them. Although, as the Minister said, he has not power to compel Mr. Cayzer to open his books to the directors of Caledonian, if his undertaking today is to mean anything, he should exercise the strongest possible persuasion on Mr. Cayzer to do so now.
If, as seems possible, the deal between Caledonian and B.U.A. falls through, and we revert to the present situation, as several hon. Members have said, we should have to rethink the policy of both Edwards and the White Paper, since then there would not be enough left of the independent sector to form a viable second force able to compete on the North Atlantic or any other routes, where, following the application of the White Paper criteria, parellel licensing was found to be justified. The independents would have to reconcile themselves to making a living from the inclusive tour and closed group charter business, which, as the Minister said, is a fast-growing sector of the business, in which it should be possible to make a reasonable profit.
But there would then be a more important factor which we would have to consider and which I mentioned to the Minister of State when he made his statement last week. That is that competition would be totally eliminated on the domestic trunk routes unless British United Airways Gatwick services to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Belfast, were transferred exceptionally to one of the remaining independents. Of course, it is nonsense to talk about competition—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Has the hon. Gentleman seen any statement or

guarantee given by B.O.A.C. that they would not definitely run these B.U.A. services in competition with B.E.A.? Surely, if the B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. merger went through, it would be possible for B.U.A. services domestically to compete with B.E.A.

Mr. Lubbock: It has been said that B.O.A.C. could still operate these services in competition with B.E.A., but these short routes would not fit in with the rest of their network and, with the creation of the Air Holdings Board, one could not genuinely say that there would still be competition between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. So the best solution would be for B.O.A.C., having taken over the whole route network of B.U.A., then to divest itself of these short routes, which would not, in any case, fit in with the rest of their business, thus enabling competition to continue on the domestic trunk routes.
That is a wholly exceptional case, because it is nonsense to talk, as the Tories do, as if there were competition on the international routes. They are always talking about the need to maintain competition on the North Atlantic routes or in Africa, whereas, as we all know, the competition on these routes comes from foreign-owned airlines and not from the struggle between British independents and the nationalised corporations. On the South American routes, only B.U.A. is involved. It is not competing there with B.O.A.C., and B.O.A.C. would not be competiting with any other British airline if it took over that route. On the African routes, where B.U.A. and B.O.A.C. both operate, there is a pooling agreement, so again no competition occurs.
So I come back to the important point, that only on the domestic trunk routes is there genuine competition, which I think we need to preserve. On thing on which I did agree—about the only thing—with the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South was that, on the domestic trunk routes, where there has been real competition, very few passengers would deny that it has worked to their benefit.
I said that, obviously, these domestic operations would not fit in with B.O.A.C.'s general route pattern, and this applies not only to the trunk routes, where competition has been so important,


but also to the Channel Islands services, a minor point which I mention only in passing. I hope that means can be found of bringing the independents into all these sectors and I think that they could fit in very well with European I.T. work, but this is all on the assumption that the deal between Caledonian and B.U.A. does not go through.
I turn to some of the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, East which come out in the Edwards Report or the White Paper, although, unfortunately, they are not dealt with directly in the Motion. First, there is the question of relationships between the corporations and the merits or otherwise of the Air Holdings Board concept. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this. I do not accept the arguments in the White Paper for treating the two public sector airlines as a single system rather than as two separate systems. These arguments are, briefly, that there would be significant gains in aircraft utilisation from a single integrated network, meaning that fewer aircraft would be required to do the same work; second, that there would be marketing advantages from being able to offer through travel on routes joining points now served separately by the two corporations; third, that one could eliminate ovetolapping services, as in the Near East; and fourth, that there could be better co-operation in industrial relations, catering, transport and training and in inclusive tour charters and hotel investment.
Anyone reading that list would say that co-operation between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. was unknown at present, and that the profitability of the publicly-owned sector must have been severely damaged in the past by the separation between the short and long-haul routes. But, wherever co-operation has been possible, it has been pursued actively by the corporations, as in the case of the engineering training centre which has just been established under joint sponsorship. The hon. Member mentioned the Airline Chairmen's Committee, which is the way in which these possible avenues of co-operation are now being properly explored.
The other point of course, is that the two corporations have been very profitable in comparison with some other airlines which have operated on a basis of

trying to do both short and long haul routes. It would not automatically follow that by putting the two together we would increase the return to the nation.
That is not the view of the corporations. When I have discussed this matter with them they have shown that they do not think much of this proposal, and I therefore hope that there will be time for the Government to consider again this air holding board concept, which I think is an unnecessary tinkering about with the management structure of the corporations. Although I use the word "tinkering" in this context, it could be worse than that because it could do much damage to the morale of the staff. I would like to see the proposal shelved, certainly for the time being.
It is suggested that there would be gains in aircraft utilisation, resulting in fewer aircraft. B.O.A.C.'s utilisation averaged more than 3,700 hours per aircraft last year, which is probably as good as any airline in the world. If it is pushed up any further, the frequency of unscheduled maintenance will increase and passengers will suffer from cancellations.
Moreover, the inference is that utilisation can be increased by operating B.O.A.C.'s long-haul equipment on European short-haul routes, but this is bound to cost more per seat mile compared with aircraft which have been properly designed for the shorter sectors.
Thus, the case for the air holdings board is not proved and it would require a great deal more hard evidence to support it. Equally, the civil aviation authority proposed in the White Paper needs further examination. The hon. Member for Bolton, East suggested that this was the best proposal in the White Paper and that it should be implemented without delay. I admit that, at first sight, I thought that it would be a good idea, but on looking at the functions of the C.A.A. with great care, I am not convinced that air worthiness and operational safety should be under the same management as air traffic control and licensing.
The effectiveness of the A.R.B. is the result of its existing constitution and it would almost certainly be jeopardised if


self-government by constructors, operators and insurers, together with representation by the Board of Trade, were replaced by total control from Victoria Street, It is doubtful whether the Board of Trade could attract people of the calibre of Sir Arnold Hall or Sir David Huddie to serve on the new authority as they do on the A.R.B. Council.
I would have no objection to widening the functions of the A.R.B. to include operational safety, as it seems has been suggested by the A.R.B., if I have understood paragraph 91 of the White Paper correctly. But to go further and include both air traffic control and licensing under the same umbrella would yield no positive advantages. On the contrary, it would seriously damage the longstanding methods of proceeding which have been developed by the A.R.B. It would involve taking "a calculated risk", as the Edwards Report puts it
… in taking a successful, independent organisation … and making it part of a large whole".
I see nothing in either Edwards or the White Paper to persuade me that such a risk should be taken.
I do not have time to refer to the question of subsidies on domestic routes, except to point out that where it has been decided, for reasons of social or regional policy, to keep an air service open or to start a new one, the same considerations should apply as in the case of rail services which are now subsidised under the Transport Act. It is far better for the taxpayer to know what he is being required to pay than for the facts to be concealed by cross-subsidisation.
I repeat that, in my view, the Tory Party has made a grave error of judgment in seeking to concentrate this debate entirely on the problem of B.U.A., instead of using the opportunity of a whole day's debate to discuss civil aviation over the broadest possible front. It is typical of the Conservatives, lacking any ideas of their own, to dwell on negative criticism of a development which had nothing whatever to do with Government initiatives but which came from a private enterprise firm.
The official opposition are doing their best to turn this into a party political controversy for their own advantage. It

is clear that at this stage the Tories are interested only in vote catching and not in the welfare of civil aviation. If they insist on taking their censure Motion to a vote, I shall be delighted to be in the other Lobby.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I hope that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the various subjects that he raised because I have other fish to fry. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be speaking following him because, although we are not members of the same party, we are by happy accident members of the same trade union branch. I always listen to his views, particularly on civil aviation, with the greatest interest and respect.
I wish at the outset to apologise for not being in my place for the opening stages of the debate, due to my necessary attendance at an important meeting of the Select Committee which is inquiring into the Bank of England and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended. I am particularly sorry to have missed that stage of the debate, because I would have liked to have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield).
I understand that he waved at the House a telegram purporting to have come from a mass meeting of five or six clerks and cloakroom attendants employed by B.U.A. at the Victoria air terminal. I have news for him. I have a telegram and, in due course, I too shall wave it at the House, though it may possibly carry a little more weight than his.
Yesterday, 17th March, was a great day for the Irish, as they say, and, no doubt, for the wearing of the green. I have little doubt that today will go down in history as an even greater day for the Tories and as a day for the wearing of the blue. Without question, in my humble opinion, hon. Gentlemen opposite have had their biggest single success since the start of this Parliament.
I will not disguise the fact that it has been one of the unhappiest days for me since I came into the House. I need only look at the smiling faces of, for example, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the hon. Member for


Gillingham (Mr. Burden), both of whom look like cats just out of the cream, to confirm me in my judgment that this has been a black day for civil aviation and, in particular, for hon. Members who have been proud to be supporters and backers of what, after all, is a great British publicly-owned industry.

Mr. Onslow: Sour grapes.

Mr. Kerr: My right hon. Friend said that his withholding of sanction for the merger would allow certain amalgamations to take place and that that, in his view, would have certain consequential benefits for the staff of B.U.A. He can have his view about what benefits will flow for B.U.A.'s staff and I can have mine, but more important than our opinions is what the workers and their leaders think.
I come now to my telegram, which reached me only an hour or so ago. It was sent by the Joint General Secretary of the union to which I have the honour to belong and of which I am a national executive member, A.S.T.M.S. The telegram, which was sent to me following a mass meeting at Gatwick earlier today, reads:
Three thousand"—
not just a handful—
British United staff at Gatwick behind their management's actions in making direct approach to B.O.A.C. for merger of B.U.A. They support action already taken by their national and local officers in their endeavours to bring about the merger of B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. They see merger as only logical step in bringing into effect an efficient transport industry.

Mr. Onslow: To help us assess the value of that telegram, would the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that the President of the Board of Trade told the House that he had been seriously misled? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the same might also be true of some of the gentlemen who sent him the telegram?

Mr. Kerr: I do not think so. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have knowledge of the person who sent the telegram, and I am all too well aware, not only of his outstanding ability as a trade union leader but of his integrity.

Mr. Onslow: Who is he?

Mr. Kerr: I was about to name him when the hon. Member interrupted me. It is Clive Jenkins—who else? Who else would fit the title I have just given him?
Moreover, I do not need this kind of confirmation of my views because I am only too well aware, as a person active in an airline union, of the views of our members in this respect. Our members have no doubt at all about what is being done today in their name.
I turn to the merits of the case which, somehow, seem to have eluded previous speakers as far as I understood them. We must remind ourselves that for the past 25 years—rather longer, In one case—the two nationalised, publicly-owned airlines, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., have borne the heat and burden of the day. They have been the airlines which throughout virtually the whole of their history have been the subject of fierce competition of one kind or another; on the one hand, from international airlines anxious to increase their share of the market and, on the other, from hon. Members opposite, as it might be said, rewarding their paymasters in the shape of preferential treatment being given to various independent operators. The hon. Member for Gillingham utters a cri de coeur. As he was personally identified with one of the independent airlines to which I have referred, I well understand his anguish at such a remark as mine.
One must remind the House that after all these years of travail, of hard work and building up their services right against the odds, these two nationalised publicly-owned corporations together form one of the jewels in the British industrial crown, if I may put it that way. Both of them, as we well know—and I do not know whether or not hon. Members opposite rejoice in the fact—have become highly profitable. Both of them have staffs of which they are proud, and the staffs themselves take a great pride in the achievement of the corporations: they walk very tall indeed.
Both corporations, I suggest, are living testaments to the fact that with an efficient management and skilled workers getting the proper rate for the job, public enterprise can knock spots off any variety of private enterprise supported by hon Members opposite; the spokesmen of


those whom the aforementioned gentleman, Clive Jenkins, so very accurately described as freebooting, mercantile adventurers. I myself thought that he was being a little kind in putting it in that way, but I speak as one who was for his sins actively engaged in the industry before coming into this honourable House.
I return to the question of the attitude of the B.U.A. workers because that must surely be relevant to this debate. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, as is well known, speak for their paymasters. This we understand, even if we do not respect it. I speak, and I say it quite unashamedly, for the workers of the industry who, by a curious coincidences, happen to outnumber by a very considerable margin the people who own it.
Leaving aside the telegram that I read out just now and which produced such fury in certain hon. Members opposite, the reason for B.U.A. employees being so much enamoured of the prospect of joining B.O.A.C.—and whose hopes have now been unhappily, though, I hope, temporarily, dashed by the pronouncement of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon—is simply a matter of pay and conditions.
It happens, again by a curious coincidence, that the employees of B.O.A.C. doing equivalent jobs get £7 or £8 a week more than do the B.U.A. employees. It also happens, again by coincidence, that B.O.A.C. pension conditions are better. Again by coincidence, it happens that B.O.A.C. employees have better conditions of employment, better tools to work with, better equipment to work upon, and all the rest. Any one of those people who have an I.Q. above 50 will want to work in a stable, secure job with a swinging corporation like B.O.A.C. rather than with these knock-'em-down, drag-'em-out companies we have had described this afternoon.
I would refer in passing to these aforementioned private airline owners for whom hon. Members opposite have so much to say so eloquently. Are these the legendary figures of pioneering, risk-taking aviation, as they have been described by hon. Members opposite? Are these the successors to the Lind-

berghs, the Kingsford-Smiths, the Amy Johnsons and the rest—well, are they?
As we know, and as anyone who has been in the industry for any time at all knows, what we are talking about in this context are some very well-heeled gentlemen who probably at this moment are drinking themselves silly in their City clubs and other places celebrating the great news they have had this afternoon—and I must say that I do not blame them—just as I am confident that some hon. Members, though not on this side, will be celebrating. I only hope that the celebration will not reach such levels that we have a repetition of last Thursday's disgusting behaviour.
We are talking about people who have big holdings in shipping lines and insurance companies; big people with stakes in merchant banking—and, of course, their wealthy friends; people who, in short, have over the years done "very nicely, thank you".
We are certainly not talking in this context about the workers in the industry. We are talking about people who know a "quick buck" when they see one.
That is why I am very sad, because as I read this afternoon's announcement I believe that the Government have yielded to the people who should not be their friends, and appear to have let down the people who emphatically are their friends—although for how much longer that relationship will last, I would not care to say.
Having got that off my chest, let me make it plain that I am not saying, or even implying, that there is not a rôle for the independents. [HON. MEMBERS:: "Oh."] That is a wider question. I have my own views about it. There may well be a rôle for them in terms of feeder routes, in certain types of charter work and cargo services. But what we in this House of Commons must reaffirm is that national carriers have a paramount rôle to play and must be the unchallenged leaders of our civil aviation industry.
It is the corporations which over the years have had to maintain the scheduled services in good weather and in bad, and whether profitable or unprofitable. It is they which have been saddled with "prestige" flying schedules which are, again, not necessarily profitable. It is they which have played far and away


the greatest rôle in building up British civil aviation to its present level of profitability. And it is they, particularly, which have created and kept the standards of safety and maintenance which we now see and which are far ahead of the standards in the independent section—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes—the figures are the most eloquent answer to squeals from hon. Members opposite.
The need here is for a sense of perspective in regard to the proposed B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. deal, now unhappily postponed, though, I hope, shortly to be restored. We must see what it is at attracts B.U.A. workers to this deal. When the merger talks started, the unions concerned had talks with the B.O.A.C. management, so I am informed. What the workers wanted was, first, that the pay and conditions of the B.U.A. staff should be on a par with those in B.O.A.C. Secondly, that there should be no redundancy among B.U.A. staff, and thirdly, that there should be collective bargaining before any work was transferred from Gatwick. That is the answer to some of the wilder allegations made against my trade union colleague Clive Jenkins in terms of his statements last weekend, which suggested that he was calling for political action for industrial ends. I know what is in his mind. It was not for political action but for industrial ends that he said what he did say, and I am sorry that an attempt has been made by hon. Members opposite to put a quite wrong construction on his remarks.

Sir Keith Joseph: I left the intemperate rubbish in the remarks of the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) unchecked while he was making them because no one will take notice of that, but his reference to a bad safety record could possibly do damage outside. I call attention to the table on page 207, which shows that the record of B.U.A. was slightly worse than that of B.O.A.C., but slightly better than that of B.E.A. The bill for safety given by the Edwards Committee to the independents as well as to the nationalised airlines is first-class. The hon. Member should withdraw his slur against the independents on the question of safety.

Mr. Kerr: It would take a lot more than the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) to persuade me to withdraw. Unlike him, I happen

to have been in the industry and to have had extensive dealings with the independent operators to whom he referred. If he wants a competition on the safety record of independents and of the two corporations, I will do it in The Times or anywhere else. I should be glad to oblige him any time he wishes. Otherwise, he should confine himself to something other than selective statistics to suit his rather doubtful purposes.
Whatever may be true of the attitude of hon. Members opposite, for hon. Members on this side of the House this is essentially a question of whether B.U.A. should be allowed to merge with B.O.A.C. or not. This is a question not of what opportunities should be given to swashbuckling leaders like Freddie Laker or Squadron Leader Jack Jones, but what will happen to thousands of workpeople affected in one way or another by the proposals put before the House. It is my hope that when the dust has settled, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has a further opportunity to ponder on these problems, he will allow a little more weight to be given to the needs of the airport workers, and to the conditions of the people employed in the aviation industry, in particular in B.U.A., and a little less weight to the "well-heeled" gentlemen who by and large are in support of hon. Members opposite.

7.03 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: Like the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) I must apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not having attended the earlier part of this debate. Having come into the Chamber more recently I realise that a lot has happend while I was engaged upstairs and I shall cut short my speech.
The hon. Member for Feltham is a very assiduous and hard working member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and gives me great help in our inquiries in that committee. I wish that he had been a member of the Committee some years ago when we undertook no fewer than four inquiries into the Air Corporations. On one occasion we found it necessary within two years to inquire into one of those Corporations—B.O.A.C.—because we were by no means satisfied that its level of efficiency was as high as it should be.
We do not deal in the Committee with matters concerning nationalisation. Our terms of reference are to consider the Reports and Accounts of these bodies and in doing so, so far as we can, we look very closely into their competence and efficiency. We do not become starry eyed at the end of the sittings and say that B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. is perfect. We know that they do a very good job and up to a point they attain a high degree of efficiency. If they were perfect I think we would not give a moment's thought to the independents. We consider the independents because they represent a little of the aspect of competition.
I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that there is far less competition in the air world than one would like to see for a hundred and one reasons, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of that. So far as it is possible to have competition we have always wished to see it. It would be in the interests both of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. if there were as much competition as is reasonable. We are very much impressed by the performance of the Corporations but they have not always attained the heights of proficiency and there may be a time when they lose the keen edge which they have shown recently.
Comparisons are odious and it may be only a cursory view of the Corporations, but I think that sometimes B.E.A. is the more competent of the two. That is a cursory view, although I have spent or misspent four years of my life looking into the Corporation's affairs. I gave evidence before the Edwards Committee and I am concerned at this moment, although I cannot refer to it in detail, with looking into the British Airports Authority.
If I had spoken earlier I would have spoken about the Air Transport Licensing Board. Unfortunately, when the A.T.L.B. came before the Select Committee it gave almost disastrous evidence. It may have been its off day and that view may be harsh, but I do not believe that any hon. Member, if he had been listening to the A.T.L.B. evidence, would wish it to continue as it was at that moment. It was in a difficult situation. It was subject to the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960. Its terms of reference were not clearly

defined and it found itself having to settle every application on its particular merits. It could not take a wider view of civil aviation in general. Until the board or its successors is in a position to take that wider view no decision it takes on an individual case could have much bearing on civil aviation in general.
It is, moreover, in a technically difficult position, because if the Board of Trade wishes to turn down a decision taken by the A.T.L.B. it can do so and there is no recourse to a further appeal. Imagine the situation of the A.T.L.B. set up as an independent entity which in the last resort can find that its decision, good, bad or indifferent, is set aside by the Board of Trade, with no appeal.

Mr. Burden: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember a classic example of that when the A.T.L.B. gave British Eagle a licence to fly the North Atlantic and it was appealed against by the B.O.A.C. and the Minister withdrew the licence.

Colonel Lancaster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me those facts.
I have no interest in or connection with B.U.A. It happened to come before the Committee to give evidence in the inquiry into B.E.A. while I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee. It was perfectly evident—this was more than two years ago—that B.U.A. recognised that its future was uncertain and it wondered whether it was wise to continue in operation. It was uncertain because, again, we get back to A.T.L.B. and the granting of licences.
As B.U.A. told the Committee, it had to invest on a large scale in sophisticated aeroplanes to remain in the competitive world of civil aviation. It could not come to decisions of such magnitude, on matters which involved its shareholders in such large capital sums, unless it had some assurance that it would be successful in obtaining enough work to justify the use of such large monies in investing for new aeroplanes. It was perfectly evident from its evidence—and as I say we looked at this as an all-party Committee quite dispassionately—that it was being driven into an almost impossible situation.
When recently I read that it was wishing to join in with B.O.A.C., I was not in the slightest surprised. The only


surprise I felt was that it had not done so earlier, because it was perfectly evident to us two and a half years ago that the future for it as an independent airline was so uncertain as hardly to justify the injection of new money. We felt— and I speak for the Select Committee—that to both foreign competitors and to our two public corporations competition is healthy. We felt quite certain that both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. were big enough and strong enough to deal with competition and that they are all the better for it. To say that we are going to leave all civil aviation flying to these two corporations would be essentially wrong. If the independents do nothing else they provide that measure of competition, not in the aeroplanes which they fly—because they are owned by the corporations—but in the type of services which they give, such as the politeness they show, the type of food they provide and many other means by which they can show competition.
If, as a result of today's debate and further debates on the Government's White Paper and on the Edwards Committee's Report, there comes about a situation where the Board of Trade, which is the responsible Department, decides that there shall be a sector which is available to the independent companies I hope that that is made very clear to the A.T.L.B., or whichever organisation succeeds A.T.L.B., that in that area security of tenure shall be given to the independents if they show their worth and are able to give a good service. This would not only enable the independents to do a worth-while job but it would ensure the maintenance of some degree of competition within the country and overseas. I believe that if this happens—contrary to what the hon. Member for Feltham has said—in a small way both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. will welcome it. I believe that they are big enough to do so and I hope that the day is not far off.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I find myself in a rather difficult position having originally prepared a speech which I was going to use against the Opposition Front Bench. I am wondering how much I am now bound not to use it against my own Front Bench because it seems to me rather unusual, to say the least, that when B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. have come to the

final stages of their deal suddenly the whole thing must be held up by the President of the Board of Trade so that the independents can get together with a view ultimately to competing directly against this nationalised body.
The amazing thing about what is supposed to have happened over the past three or four days is that by last weekend there was no definite Caledonian bid. Anybody who had been following the developments of this situation closely knows very well that there had often been talks between Caledonian and B.U.A. but it was not until recently that these talks produced anything. So here we are at the final stages when B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. are almost ready to announce the conclusion of their deal, and suddenly my right hon. Friend steps in and says that the whole thing has to be held up so that we can start all over again and give direct encouragement to private enterprise. If my right hon. Friend had said that he was going to let the Air Transport Licensing Board examine the position I might have been able to understand it slightly. But when he says that he not only wants to delay his approval but that he also wants to give B.U.A. and Caledonian a fair chance to get together to form a second force airline, I can only conclude that this is the type of policy which will directly encourage competition against B.O.A.C.
It will obviously be said by many hon. Gentlemen opposite that they do not want to see the carving up of B.O.A.C. Even the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition, has claimed that he does not want to see the carving up of B.O.A.C. He has gone out of his way to point out in the various broadcasts which he has made and in his various pieces in the newspapers that he is not in favour of carving up the Corporation. Even the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), now on the Opposition Front Bench, knows very well that it is Conservative policy not only to inject private capital into nationalised industries but also to give the independent sector in aviation a fair chance by giving it an even bigger slice of the Corporation routes. If Conservative policy is not to carve up some of B.O.A.C.'s routes to give the independents a chance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deny that tonight. But


I can only say that in all of the conversations and meetings and developments which I have been following in civil aviation, it has always been acknowledged that it is Conservative aviation policy to carve up B.O.A.C. to give the independents a slice of the cake.
We have heard a great many things about the second force. We have heard that it is not supposed to impair the Corporation's financial liabilities and responsibilities. In paragraph 33 of the White Paper it is said that the second condition for the second force is
… the designation of an independent airline on a route already served by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. should not unduly impair the Corporations' services, or their capacity to meet the financial obligations laid upon them by the Government.
The Minister of State may claim that the emergence of a second force airline will not unduly impair the corporation's financial liabilities. But what happens if the merger between B.U.A. and Caledonian comes off and next year, or the year after, it comes forward to the A.T.L.B. or the Civil Aviation Authority, whichever is then in power, and says, "Look at us. We can now qualify under the three conditions laid down in the White Paper". Once this merger has established itself we shall see this newly created private second force beginning to carve up the already profitable routes of B.O.A.C. Many of us on this side of the House have received rather a kick in the teeth this afternoon because we felt that it was not right that one should interfere with the obligations and with the very successful performance of a nationalised undertaking. This is what is ultimately bound to happen if this second force of two private airlines gets off the ground and comes before a future civil aviation licensing body.
Even if the second force is formed, and even if it comes before the new civil aviation licensing body, will it honestly be able to claim that it will be sufficiently viable to meet the kind of obligations which will be placed on international schedule carriers over the next 20 years? Before the merger with either B.O.A.C. or Caledonian was being talked about, B.U.A. was proudly telling the world that, in order to secure the kind of capital which It needed, it would have to have at least 2,300 of B.O.A.C. scheduled ser-

vice seat miles and a guarantee, it wanted, that it would have at least 3,100 scheduled service seat miles. Already, therefore, even before the bids were talked about, B.U.A. said that it must have a substantial guarantee of route mileage.
That substantial guarantee of route mileage has not been given, but, on top of the B.U.A. demand for a substantial guarantee of route mileage, it is admitted by all who have taken part in the bids over the last three or four days that any new kind of second force to meet the sort of obligations which will be placed upon it by the White Paper will probably need a capital of at least £85 million. We are talking here not just about DC8s, DC9s, Boeing 707s and the like. We are talking about the jumbo 747, about Concordes, about vertical take-off and landing and short take-off and landing. We are talking about £85 million, a vast capital investment and far too expensive, I maintain, for the private combination talked about today to afford.

Mr. Burden: It is not necessary for an independent or any other airline to invest all that amount of capital in costly jet aircraft. It can be done on sale and lease back. It does not have to spend the total sum which the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has played into my hands. If he wants to see the second British flag carrier on the North Atlantic operating with leased aircraft, that can be his policy.

Mr. Burden: Oh, really.

Mr. Huckfield: If there is to be a second carrier—and I would rather not have one—that second carrier will have to invest very large sums in capital equipment. If the hon. Gentleman honestly imagines that an outfit the size of Laker Airways, or having the leasing policy of Laker Airways, can become Britain's second carrier on the North Atlantic, he does not know what he is talking about.
Over the last ten years—here are the facts and figures—load factors on the North Atlantic have fallen by at least 10 per cent. Automatically, the addition of only 12 or 13 jumbos to the B.O.A.C. fleet will increase capacity by 50 per cent. If all the other scheduled carriers


put on the number of jumbos which most of them are planning at present, capacity on certain routes may increase by as much as 150 or 100 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman think that a second carrier operating with leased aircraft can compete against that sort of thing? I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman may have been connected with one or two "tiddly-push" private airlines but he has not examined the real capital requirements which will be called for in the developing situation over the next ten or fifteen years to meet the obligations imposed by international scheduled services.
We have now reached the stage when even Pan-Am, the world's biggest international scheduled carrier, is having financial difficulties. If the sort of second carrier envisaged by the hon. Gentleman is the one we are to have on the North Atlantic, it will, first, be the sort of carrier which will go head on the basis of group and bulk travel and, second it will be the sort of carrier most likely to need the Government to bail it out within ten or 15 years.
Hon. Members opposite should examine the mergers which have already taken place in the United States. Let them consider the forecasts of the changes coming there and the complete breakdown of the Chicago Convention definitions of 1944. All this must be withstood by the sort of new entrant about which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is thinking, and I very much doubt that the combination of private interests which he envisages could be viable in such conditions.
We have heard a great deal today about the view of the unions in all this. It has been suggested that certain trade union leaders have been holding a pistol to the Government's head. But let us consider the wages and conditions of those who work on the tarmac. They are important, too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) said, the wages for B.O.A.C. ground staff are £7 to £8 better than those for comparable workers in B.U.A. Is not this the case of a trade union leader who genuinely wants to improve the pay and working conditions of his members? If their pay and working conditions would be improved by B.O.A.C. taking over B.U.A., it is no wonder that my hon.

Friend the Member for Feltham can read out a telegram saying that 3,000 ground handling and other workers at Gatwick support the take-over of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C.
No matter whether one considers pilots or the humblest level of ground staff, it is clear that wages and conditions in the private sector operated by the independents are not as good as those in the public sector.

Mr. Burden: Nonsense.

Mr. Huckfield: At this moment, in the Industrial Court the British Airline Pilots Association is having its work cut out in a hard struggle to convince B.U.A. that it ought to pay its pilots as much as B.E.A. pays. So much for the hon. Gentleman's "nonsense".
Apart from those considerations, I cannot see why one should want to carve up a successful airline. Since 1965,
B.O.A.C. has increased its scheduled service passenger carryings by about 31 per cent., and in the same period it has contributed about £76 million in profits or surpluses. In the last financial year, this airline made a surplus of £21·7 million. It is one of the most profitable airlines on international scheduled services in the world.
With that sort of record, why can we not let B.O.A.C. get on with the job? Why must we dangle before it the prospect of competition? We have here a successful public enterprise. Why interfere with it?
It has been said that competition helps. Again, one has only to look at the sort of acitvities now being undertaking by airlines in the United States. Let the Opposition look at the situation between Chicago and the East coast, where there are four or five carriers often competing on the same route. Let them look at the sort of route capacity, and excess capacity, which has been the result of so much competition on, for example, the West Coast and Chicago routes. We can see the rationalisation which American airlines are being forced to initiate, bearing out what this Government have been saying for a long time regarding our own domestic routes, namely, that competition on internal services can only force up fares and can only create excess capacity. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East looks at the facts,


he will find that, since we have had competition on internal routes in this country, we have had faster fares increases than ever before.
So much for the argument that B.U.A. forced B.E.A. to introduce hot meals on its domestic services. The other side of the coin is that, although people might allegedly be given a greater choice—if one can call Gatwick versus Heathrow a choice—there have been fares increases on these routes since B.U.A. has been competing against B.E.A.

Mr. Lubbock: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a great convenience, as B.U.A. said in its licence application to the A.T.L.B., for people who live on the south side of London to have a service from Gatwick, which is so much easier for them to reach than Heathrow.

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman will know also that there is a No. 727 bus which serves all three airports and is very convenient.

Mr. Lubbock: Oh, really.

Mr. Huckfield: Hon. Members opposite have said that people in the industry want to see the private second force survive. Why has this not been evident from all the industry? Let us consider the precedent, the awesome precedent for the Opposition, of Hickie Borman Tours, a big previous customer of B.U.A., which only a fortnight ago said that it would switch all its tour bookings from B.U.A. to B.E.A. Air Tours. Is that a testimony to private enterprise? Is that a testimony in independent aviation operation?
Horizon Holidays, which is B.U.A.'s main customer and which has helped B.U.A. to expand its charter and exclusive tour work, stated last week in a television programme in which I appeared that it did not mind if B.O.A.C. took over B.U.A. Therefore, even in the industry there is a substantial amount of support for this kind of take-over.
Many allegations have been made today about the comparative performance of B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. on the South American route. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made several remarks from a sitting position to the effect that B.U.A.'s performance on the east coast South American route was

immeasurably better than B.O.A.C.'s. That argument conveniently overlooks the fact that B.O.A.C. was forced to give up the east coast South American route because it could not get the kind of frequency which it required to operate its VC10 service. It was coincidental that, as soon as B.U.A. started to operate the east coast South American route, it got precisely the frequency for which B.O.A.C. had been asking. If the hon. Gentleman who made that allegation would like me to supply him with more details later, I should be happy to do so. B.U.A. got the route frequency which B.O.A.C. had been unable to get. Consequently, B.U.A. was able to succeed.
Finally, why cannot we let B.O.A.C. behave like any other airline? It is a responsible and financially successful public corporation. It treats its employees well. It has given good service to Britain, contributing over £76 million to the public purse over the past four years. It is a very successful example of nationalised industry.
It therefore came as a great surprise to me that my right hon. Friend said that he would not allow for the moment this very successful enterprise to behave like any other airline undertaking and that he would suspend all of this to allow private enterprise to compete against it.
I hope that the B.U.A.-Caledonian deal does not come off, because I do not believe in the emergence of a second force. I do not want to see the emergence of a second carrier on the North Atlantic. I want to see B.O.A.C. maintaining this nation at the forefront of aviation developments and making aviation history once more, as we always have done with B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: In this interesting debate hon. Members on both sides agree that the main purpose of our civil aviation policy should be to create a strong and viable aviation industry. By so doing we create, not only prosperity directly for Britain through the overseas earnings of the Overseas Airways Corporation, but also a market for the aircraft industry.
This industry provides employment directly throughout the United Kingdom and is a leader in technological development, progress and research. It enables


British industry to share in advances in metallurgy and electronics; and the technical spin-off affects many other British industries. It is also an important prestige-earner for the United Kingdom.
The aviation industry and the aircraft manufacturing industry between them contribute substantially to our balance of payments, not only because of the passengers carried by the airlines, but also because of the exports of the aircraft industry, which have been rising steadily, and in the savings in costs which would otherwise be charged to our balance of payments for services or products which we would have to buy from abroad. Finally, but by no means least, the aviation industry and aircraft manufacturing contribute vitally to our defence.
Towards the end of his speech the President of the Board of Trade said that he thought the Opposition were largely responsible for the present state of our aviation industry. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960. I served on the Standing Committee which considered that Bill. I treated the Bill with the greatest suspicion and was strongly opposed to much of it. Some of my hon. Friends and I sought to amend it in Committee, particularly the provisions relating to the appeal procedure.
I believe that the present unhappy state of our aviation industry arises from that Act. Because of the faults inherent in that Act we do not have strong independent airlines. The bias has always been towards the corporations.
The hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) gave a strong exposition of the importance of nationalised industry. Though both sides have the strength of our aircraft industry at heart, we are divided as to the methods whereby this can be achieved. I believe that only through competition can our best longterm interests be served.
I speak from personal experience. I fly to Belfast almost every week. The presence on that route first of British Eagle and then of British United has helped to maintain a high standard for the ordinary air passenger. Those companies have kept B.E.A. on its toes. I

am not in any way denigrating B.E.A. which provides an excellent service, but it was noticeable that when the independents were given a frequency on this route the B.E.A. service improved and has remained at a high standard. If B.E.A. had a complete monopoly on the route, the standard of service might well decline.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that B.E.A. has started serving him with hot meals and tea. Has he also noticed how the fare increases have increased every year?

Mr. McMaster: That is irrelevant, because, unfortunately, fares on buses, tubes and trains, and also petrol and all other costs, have been rising meanwhile. The higher salaries and wages paid by B.E.A., to which the hon. Gentleman made special reference, have perhaps contributed just a little to the fare increases.
I can see why the telegram, which was read out today, was sent, and why hon. Members opposite strongly advocate a Government monopoly in air transport. This puts Clive Jenkins in an unrivalled position. He can then take both the air Corporations and the Nation by the throat, and the trade union movement has not always been reluctant to do so. We have in the past weeks had several examples of trade unions trying to dictate policy to the Government. The Minister of State will remember that earlier this week we were debating the Merchant Shipping Bill. I regret that he gave way to trade union pressure and said that he would look again at a package deal which had been agreed between both sides of the industry. The trade unions had objected to the disciplinary clauses.
Barely a week later, the trade unions in the aircraft industry are attempting to throw their weight about. This is damaging to the interests of the country. The hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who I regret to say are not here now, have shown how strongly they feel that what the trade unions say should become Government policy. I was delighted that in opening the debate the Minister said that, at least for the time being, he was not prepared to give way to this type of pressure.
If the country is to develop strong airlines and a strong aircraft industry we need the spur of competition to keep the aviation industry on its toes. Eight or nine years ago I took up with B.E.A. a point that many travellers had put to me about a bus service from the airport. As a regular traveller on B.E.A. I have found it inconvenient to get to Gloucester Road, which is nowhere near a "tube" station. I suggested to the Minister of Aviation and the chief executive of B.E.A. that it would expedite the journey, particularly for incoming passengers, if a bus could go to the side of the aircraft and then directly to the centre of London.
I was delighted when, as a result of this, an executive coach was introduced, but a little surprised to find that it terminated at Cromwell Road Air Terminal, which as I have said is not a very convenient place. I carried on the correspondence and suggested that the bus might go further into Central London or at least near some "tube" station. In the old days the terminal was at Waterloo and before that at Kensington High Street, which was very convenient. I asked B.E.A. if it would find out what the passengers wanted, and run a temporary service to see whether it was suitable. I got nowhere. Perhaps if B.E.A. has a monopoly this is how it would treat passengers—on the basis that it knows best and the passengers would have no alternative. Now that British Rail is operating faster and more competitive services perhaps B.E.A. will think again.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Gentleman is not being quite fair to B.E.A. He must remember that when the present terminal was agreed upon it was hoped that there would be an underground train service carrying passengers into the centre of London. B.E.A. did not fail with this, it was London Transport which did not co-operate.

Mr. McMaster: Perhaps there is some reason why the buses should keep to the present inconvenient schedule. It will however be some years probably before either the Victoria link on Southern Electric or the "tube" line is extended to the terminal and further thought should be given to the convenience of the passengers.
I travel to Belfast in a Trident, which was introduced at great expense as a replacement for the Vanguards. It is a much more expensive aircraft and cuts ten minutes off the flight. What is the point of that if passengers waste time at either side waiting to get on the plane? With the benefit of some experience I feel that when a nationalised industry is running a public service particularly a monopoly service, there is nothing to make it serve the customers convenience or to cut costs, in the way that independent airlines might do. I do not accept the remarks of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) about the rise in prices and fares. I have seen many examples of inefficiency in manning on the State airlines compared with the efficient and cost cutting service provided by British Eagle and B.U.A.
The duty which lies with the Government in protecting public money invested in the aircraft industry puts them in an impossible position. This was dealt with in the Edwards Report when it was said that the aims of the air corporations and the independent airlines often conflict this conflict comes to a head in the granting of licences.
How can it be expected that a fair share will be handed out to private airlines when so much public money is invested in the State corporations? Once a decision has been made to grant frequencies to independents they should be given at least 50 per cent. to put them in a viable position. When British Eagle was granted a frequency of one flight per day it could not possibly provide a viable service. It soldiered on valiantly, as did B.U.A. It was the restrictions flowing from this Act which led to the present difficulties, and the approach by B.U.A. to B.O.A.C.
The only solution is to unscramble the omelette completely, if it can be done. Civil aviation must either be completely in the hands of private enterprise, with at least two corporations competing to provide an efficient service and a strong market for the aircraft industry, or there must be complete State control, with the independents coming in on the package tour side. I cannot see any sensible halfway house. The Minister is a final court of appeal and he is torn between his duty to protect public investment—sometimes private companies might think it extravagant public investment—and his


duty to make an independent judgment. This has resulted in the independents being placed in an uneconomic position during the last 10 years, and many of them have folded up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) referred to the source from which B.O.A.C. gets its money to take over its competitors. When this House votes funds to B.O.A.C. it does not say in detail how the money should be spent. However, money voted to re-equip an air corporation should not be spent on taking over its competitors. The general purposes for which the money will be used are stated when funds are voted, but the taxpayer has no guarantee that it is appropriate for his money to be spent by B.O.A.C. to take over its competitors.
Before a merger of this sort can take place one must consider the value of the aircraft and routes to be obtained and whether the necessary licences will be transferred to B.O.A.C. This matter cannot be glossed over, because it goes to the root of the Motion.
If a State corporation can, under pressure such as that we have seen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, spend money regardless of results by buying out its competitors, so to put it in a monopoly position, one must consider if the national interest is being served.
I submit that when a corporation of this type is in a monopoly position, many disadvantages can result. Not only can there be inconvenience to passengers, because they have no other way to travel, but there can be any number of increases in fares. In addition, as the trade unions know, there can be any number of claims—all sorts of blackmail methods can be used against the public interest—to obtain wage awards which might be totally out of line with awards in other sectors. This, above all, must be resisted by the Government.
I hope that the Government will stick to the policy in the White Paper, based mainly on the Edwards Report, and resist the approach by B.U.A. to B.O.A.C. I also hope that they will do everything to encourage B.U.A., Caledonian and the other independents to form a second force, which would be in the best interest of civil aviation and the aircraft manufacturing industry, for

which the State corporations and independent airlines provide an important home market.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: Normally I enjoy commenting on the various points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), particularly when we debate shipbuilding and other topics, but because a number of hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate and because I do not wish to speak at length, I will not do so tonight.
I welcome, in general terms, the policy which the Government are following on this issue. I am glad that a merger has been proposed between B.U.A. and B.O.A.C. Recently in the House I supported B.U.A. as a possible second force, but I did so with a good deal of hesitation, for a variety of reasons. However, any difficulties that may have occurred at that time now appear to have been cured.
For example, I felt that the greater scope would give B.U.A. a better chance to overcome the objections which many of us had to its policy. I particularly objected to B.U.A.'s wages policy, and my objections extended to the company's policy on hours and general conditions for both its flying and ground staffs. I was supported in that view by the continuing correspondence which I had had with the captains and others employed by the company. Indeed, I thought it was generally agreed among hon. Members interested in aviation that B.U.A. was a highly criticised operator.
In a way, therefore, this is an exercise of salvation in that when B.U.A. merges with B.O.A.C. most of these criticisms will automatically disappear, since the employees of B.U.A. will, at all levels, come within the higher standards provided by B.O.A.C.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My hon. Friend may not have heard the Minister say that there was no guarantee at present that there would be a merger between B.U.A. and B.O.A.C.

Mr. Rankin: I regret that I was not present for the Minister's speech. An important development affecting shipbuilding in Scotland took place during the night and I had to attend a meeting with the Minister. Naturally, that matter must be my first interest; and it accounted


for my absence when my right hon. Friend was speaking.

Mr. Heffer: I was not criticising my hon. Friend, but attempting to give him some information.

Mr. Rankin: Nevertheless, the possibility remains. I would rather see B.U.A. dealt with in this way and Caledonian given a chance to become the second force. I think a great deal of Caledonian, not because of its name, though it has close Scottish connections, but because it is an adventurous group comprised of young men who are far-seeing. Caledonian's conditions of employment and service do not in any way dissatisfy us and, of course, I want to see a second force in existence. I have always made that clear. A second force necessarily acts as a spur to huge businesslike public corporations. They are always subject to a great deal of criticism.
I have continually prodded the British Airports Authority about the transport link between Victoria and Hounslow. I have asked time and again when the rail link from Hounslow to London Airport will be completed. I am very glad to know that this will happen relatively soon. I am very glad to know that this will happen relatively soon. I say "relatively", comparing it with the great length of time over which we have hoped that it would happen. I gather that it will be relatively soon from what appeared in the Press, but the cost will be great.
I imagine that a great deal has been said about the airport services. Paragraph 76 of the White Paper has a bearing on something that is happening in my city of Glasgow. The paragraph says:
It will be a responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority to study the requirements for aerodromes to match the development of air services. The Government will, however, remain responsible for the allocation of public funds by way of direct or indirect subsidies in this field as in the field of domestic air services. Nor do the Government intend in this context to change the legislation governing land use planning, since aerodrome development affects much wider interests than those of civil aviation alone.
At Abbotsinch, Glasgow's airport, which is now in a stage of development, we have come up against a serious difficulty because of the last part of that paragraph.

Mr. Onslow: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is not wholly germane to the Motion. It may be that the House, fascinated though it is to hear about Abbotsinch, hopes that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that he will not take too long about it.

Mr. Rankin: As I took the invaluable precaution before venturing on this line of approaching the Chair and getting the Chair behind me in this endeavour, I must confess that I was nearly set on fire inwardly when the hon. Gentleman rose, but, being a gentleman, I sat down to listen to him, although I did so with the greatest difficulty.
The problem I have mentioned is a very serious one in the development of aviation in Scotland, a country for which the hon. Gentleman evidently does not have much regard, so he had better not come to Scotland for a wee while yet.
Glasgow wants to extend its runway from 7,000 ft. to 8,400 ft. Other airports may want to do the same. Glasgow is a municipal airport, like Manchester, Birmingham—

Mr. Heffer: And Liverpool.

Mr. Rankin: And Liverpool, so wonderfully represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), so that automatically he is on my side too. Teesside is also a municipal airport. Manchester has a 9,200-ft. runway; Birmingham a 7,500-ft. runway; Liverpool a 7,500-ft. runway; and Teesside a 7,500-ft. runway.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am sorry. I shall have to disillusion the hon. Gentleman in thinking that he has the Chair behind him. He is getting rather far from the Motion. He should relate what he is saying to the second force or the Government's action in the circumstances that we are considering.

Mr. Rankin: I had the Chair initially behind me. The Chair has now modified its views as it has modified its presence. I hope that that will not make too violent a difference to me, because I must have the Chair with me on this point, which I shall deal with briefly.
Surely it is not wrong for Glasgow municipal airport to want to match Liverpool and all the other municipal airports?


Surely a group of English Members will not say to a solitary Scotsman that I cannot obtain the right to the same length of runway as they have? Every hon. Member should be supporting me. That is all we are asking for, and we are asking for it for a reason that every hon. Member knows. Aircraft are getting bigger—

Mr. Tim Fortescue: Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston) rose—

Mr. Rankin: If I am drawn away from the subject, perhaps you may rule some of my interrupters out of order for a change, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the extension of Liverpool's runway was entirely at the ratepayers' expense?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that we should encourage the hon. Gentleman to go any further on that line.

Mr. Rankin: Glasgow did exactly the same, so it was not worth the hon. Gentleman wasting my time with that interruption.
Because aircraft are getting bigger, we cannot help runways getting longer to match them. We are looking for bigger aircraft. The Vanguard and the Trident are ceasing to be used as much and now along comes the Boeing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. He is so far away from the Motion that I must now rule him out of order.

Mr. Rankin: I will leave that point, then, in case I finish in disorder.
This desire on the part of Glasgow has led to a little conflict between it and a neighbouring airport. I am sure that neither you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nor any hon. Member wants to see conflict among airports. So I take it that I shall have the support of both sides of the House in seeking to suggest that this conflict is not something we want to see developing. It would be in complete discord with the civil aviation policy in this document which is before us if we were seeking to develop—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are concerned with the White Paper only in so far as it deals with this present situ-

ation and the conflict about B.U.A. The hon. Gentleman is, I think, rather far from this.

Mr. Rankin: I have gone, perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as far as I can go in safety. I have made it clear that something is brewing which may lead to serious differences of view resulting in action that neither side wants to see between two airports in Scotland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in imminent danger of being asked to sit down if he pursues this line.

Mr. Rankin: —unless this House takes a more active interest in the quarrel that is developing. I hope in due course that it will acquire more sense than it has at present.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not wish me to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is not here. I had a close association with his constituency during the war when I was based at Bramcote bomber station, but that association does not mean that I agree with much of what he said. He was extremely fluent and persuasive but I am afraid that he was not too accurate. One of his most fallacious arguments implied that, because of competition from independents on internal lines, B.E.A. had to put up fares. We know that this is not true, and that the fares would probably have risen considerably more if there had not been such competition. We have the example of British Rail, where fares have risen considerably, and we are now threatened with the innovation of surcharges during peak hours, simply because there is no competition.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton referred rather scathingly to some of the people who run independent airlines; but those people have run airlines successfully. Freddie Laker started B.U.A. and made a success of it, and when B.O.A.C. could no longer continue with the South American routes because it could not get a Government subsidy from the Conservative Government, B.U.A. took over that route successfully.


On leaving B.U.A. Mr. Laker set up his own airline, which had small beginnings and which this year will make a profit of £1½ million. I suggest that Freddie Laker, the Caledonian operators and others know far more about operating airlines than any hon. Member.
Why does B.U.A. wish to sell out, when it has a considerable investment, profitability and an excellent management team? It wishes to sell out because, until today, there has been no assertion from the Government that a second force airline, in which B.U.A. must now play an important part, would have a viable route pattern to enable It to re-equip and have a reasonable assurance of profitability.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Nuneaton is now in the Chamber. He implied that an aircraft that is sold and leased back is not as efficient as one that is purchased outright by B.O.A.C. If that was not his point, it must be something in the financial arrangements that upsets him.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I understand that during my absence the hon. Gentleman referred to an airport in my constituency, but there is no airport in my constituency. When I was talking about the leasing of aircraft, I was referring to the fact that the Air Transport Licensing Board had in every case turned down transatlantic applications precisely because the airlines concerned were doing too much leasing and did not have the capital.

Mr. Burden: That was not what the hon. Gentleman said. He is trying to be too clever when he refers to remarks made by me which he did not hear. I was stationed at Bramcote, which he will find was a bomber aerodrome during the war just outside his constituency.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Bramcote is not in my constituency.

Mr. Burden: It is just outside the outskirts of Nuneaton. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree to that.
The Air Transport Licensing Board has to assure itself of the financial viability of an airline that asks for operational routes. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that there is nothing against

aircraft which are sold and leased back. If a company can do this and get the licence, there is nothing wrong in it, it is a good commercial operation. Although the hon. Gentleman may not like it, much equipment right across the industrial board is sold and leased back or bought on hire purchase. This is a completely fallacious argument. With great respect to the hon. Member for Nuneaton, Mr. Laker knows more about flying and about running airlines and making a profit out of them than the hon. Gentleman will ever know as long as he lives.

Mr. Burden: No, I am sorry I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Why did they wish to sell out?

Mr. Burden: They wished to sell out because at that time they could not see the future they wanted. But now the right hon. Gentleman quite properly has made clear today, in no uncertain terms, that the Government's policy is for a second-force airline. We on this side of the House welcome it as I am sure in their hearts do many people in management in the nationalised corporations.
This proposal was not put forward by hon. Members in this House but by a high level committee, the Edwards Committee, which went thoroughly into the matter. Whatever hon. Gentlemen may think about a second-force airline, that committee studied the matter thoroughly, far more thoroughly than any Member of this House could possibly examine it.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: No.

Mr. Burden: Again, the hon. Member for Nuneaton is being a little patronising, as he was in his speech. If he thinks that he is in a position to understand the airline industry and report upon it more effectively than did the Edwards Committee, I suggest that he starts to instruct his right hon. Friend.
The position is that several Members below the Gangway opposite are absolute out-and-out extreme Socialists. They want to see everything possible nationalised. They want to see nationalisation of all the means of production. That is their fundamental philosophy and belief. Thank heavens, that in the airline industry at


least it is not the philosophy of the Government. The Government are right in refusing at this stage to give their blessing to the purchase of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C. The way is now open for the creation of a real second-force airline through a merger of B.U.A. and Caledonian, and I hope that the Laker enterprise will be included in it.
I hope that this will happen for a very good reason. The two together would provide one of the most dynamic managements possible in this country—far more dynamic and impressive than anything the hon. Member for Nuneaton could do.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Oh.

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member for Nuneaton is so sure of his facts about how to run an airline, I suggest it would do him good to try to start one. Then the public would have to suffer.
What is necessary from the beginning is that the right hon. Gentleman should give a clear undertaking that the second force will have a viable route structure which will provide good utilisation with fair chances of profitability. This is necessary for the re-equipment that they must undertake in the seventies moving into the period of the jumbos and the supersonics. But if they are to do that it is necessary for the Government to make clear that the utilisation will occur on routes that could provide good profit-ability. If there is such a guarantee, there will be no difficulty whatever in coining the money necessary for the re-
equipment. Even if £70 or £80 million were required for finance, that could be found if those who had the money could be encouraged into the project by the possibility of profitability.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have stated that this will cut into the profits of nationalised corporations. Nobody on this side of the House wishes to see the power and effectiveness—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Oh.

Mr. Burden: One hon. Gentleman opposite earlier in the debate said that we on this side looked like a lot of Cheshire cats over the Minister's statement. The hon. Member for Nuneaton looks rather like a Cheshire cat whose milk has gone sour.
Why do the Government want a second force airline? This is what they say in the White Paper:
Civil aviation is one of the world's fastest growing industries. The output of the industry on international scheduled services alone grew at an average rate of 17 per cent. a year over the last ten years, or more than doubled every five years. Part of this growth was accounted for by new airlines and those which were catching up from a late start, with the result that the relative share of British airlines like those of the United States, declined over this period.
There is the real reason that the Government want to see a second force airline. Because it is impossible for B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. to capitalise fully on the growth that is now taking place and will continue in the years ahead in passenger traffic. There is also a tremendous growth in freight. If this country has any future its performance in the air is just as important to its future as was the mercantile marine in the past. We must not take a narrow line as to whether the corporation should belong to the State and deny to private industry the right to participate. If we are straightforward we must in our hearts believe that what really matters is that Britain should take an increasing part in a tremendous growth industry.
What is said in the White Paper is very germane to the whole debate and it is this:
The contribution made by British airlines to the nation's economy depends on their continued growth and prosperity.
If we can have a second-force airline, that growth and prosperity will play a great part in the economic future and stability of this country.
I turn finally to the objectives in the White Paper
In any statement of the objectives of British civil aviation policy there is a need to strike a balance which allows the industry to plan with reasonable confidence and continuity, without imposing a crippling rigidity.
I am glad that that statement appears in the White Paper. I have know the right hon. Gentleman for a long time and I think that sentence was inserted with good reason. It makes sound common sense. If that is made known in the terms of reference of the new licensing body there will not only be a useful second-force airline, but it will be a successful airline which will bring credit to this country. I was greatly encouraged by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman


this afternoon made clear that neither he nor the Government would be bullied by Mr. Clive Jenkins. If any member of the trade unions in this country needed a swift kick in the pants that person is Clive Jenkins, and I am grateful that the Minister has administered one this afternoon.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I had no intention of intervening in the debate but, having heard my right hon. Friend's statement and some of the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I feel compelled to make a contribution.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) that I do not regard him and his hon. Friends as Cheshire cats. I have always regarded them as a row of extinct volcanoes. They may have had fire in their bellies at one time, but they have not much left now, except when it comes to the defence of private enterprise, their own interests and what they hold near and dear to them. In the defence of private enterprise, the extinct volcanoes have a few rumblings left. They are only too keen to rise to its defence, irrespective of the arguments involved and the issues being discussed.
I thought that my right hon. Friend's statement was exceedingly disappointing, and I can understand the joy which has been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. While we have not had any definitive statement to the effect that the proposed merger between B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. is dead for ever, I take it from my right hon. Friend's statement and the joy of hon. Members opposite that it is felt that private enterprise will get a boost from the decision to hold back the merger.
Like the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I do not think that the second force proposal is sacrosanct. Despite the White Paper, we are not tied to it. This House has not discussed the White Paper. We have not had an opportunity to express our views. We have not discussed the Edwards Report. We have had no opportunity of saying what we, as Socialists, feel about the second force.
Some of my hon. Friends—I hope all of them—are Socialists. As a Socialist,

I do not apologise for believing in public ownership. I want to see its extension and expansion because I believe that we should have a classless society where people run our industries on the basis of their ability and not that of the class from which they come.

Mr. Onslow: Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) need not try to interrupt me, because I will not accept an interruption from him. I regard him as an objectionable and obnoxious anomaly.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is an adequate enough debater to be able to do without personal comments of that sort.

Mr. Heffer: I listened the other day to the hon. Member for Woking making reference to one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. His every statement was objectionable and obnoxious—

Mr. Onslow: And true.

Mr. Heffer: He made all sorts of accusations, and came near to calling my hon. Friend a liar. I will not accept that sort of thing from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I cannot understand why the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) does not say that the Opposition do not intend to push this Motion to a vote—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: They have indicated that they will not.

Mr. Heffer: I am not surprised, because they have gained a great deal. We have been told that the Government will not succumb to threats from the workers, yet they seem to have succumbed to threats from the Opposition.

Mr. Mason: Just to get the record clear, the Government took the decision which I announced today before the Opposition tabled their Motion, so the threat did not really work.

Mr. Heffer: I accept what my right hon. Friend says. However, it was fairly clear what the Opposition would do, just as it was clear from the tremendous amount of propaganda and the developing Press campaign that they were directing their threats at the Government.
As I have said, I believe in the extension and expansion of public ownership. I want to devote a few moments to the situation where the workers threaten the Government and demand more nationalisation. I have never heard so much rot spoken about this as we have heard in the last few days. When the working conditions of employees are at stake, have they no right to say by whom their industry should be owned? Did not the miners have the right to demand public ownership of their industry so that they might work in safe mines and have decent working conditions, with pit-head baths and other amenities which they did not have under private enterprise? Do not air crews and airport workers have the right to say that they want decent conditions in a publicly-owned industry rather than those which they had under private enterprise?
Let us consider the record of the independents. I know a little about them, though not as much as the hon. Member for Gillingham. I bow to his knowledge, because he has had some interest in the independents. I never have, except to fly on some of their aircraft at various times—

Mr. Burden: I bet the hon. Gentleman was well looked after, too.

Mr. Heffer: I was just about to mention some of the aircraft. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. There was an independent airline operating from Liverpool called Starways. It went out of existence and was taken over by British Eagle. But what happened to British Eagle, and what happened to its workers? In Liverpool, on one day they were employed. The next day, they were out of work. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) was good enough to concern himself with their problems and, quite rightly, because many of his constituents and mine found themselves out of work as a result of the failure of British Eagle.

Mr. Fortescue: But is it not true that, at the time of British Eagle's financial difficulties, the amount of loyalty and support that it had from its workers in an effort to keep the airline alive was remarkable, praiseworthy and almost unique?

Mr. Heffer: That is quite true. It is amazing how the workers are always loyal at such times, whereas we hear the contrary so often from that side of the House that one would imagine that workers are a lot of layabouts who do nothing and have no concern about their employment. When it suits the argument of hon. Members opposite the workers are loyal. When it suits another, they are layabouts, strike-bound and always causing trouble.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman may not know it, but we made arrangements to re-finance the company, but were informed the next morning that the mid-Atlantic licence had been taken away from it. Secondly, on the hon. Gentleman's point about people being discharged from their employment, he will no doubt recall that the Government are closing down Beagle and a shipyard in the north of England which is financed to a considerable extent by Government money and which will involve some 3,600 men being made redundant.

Mr. Heffer: I do not accept everything that my right hon. Friend does relating to some industries. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. However, that does not excuse what happened at that time.
I should like to quote from the Board of Trade Special Review on "The safety performance of United Kingdom airline operators". On page 20, paragraph 70, comparing the safety of the independents with the nationalised publicly-owned airlines, it states:
… the accident rates of the independent operators in columns H to N are all higher than those of the combined Corporations and in a number of cases the differences are statistically significant. Consequently it is reasonable to assume that their safety levels were lower than those of the Corporations. In most cases the rates are considerably higher although in the case of accidents per 100,000 stage flights the Independent rate is only about 16 per cent. higher than that of the combined Corporations.
That does not sound very much. It depends how one feels about travelling in such aircraft compared with others.
On page 21, paragraph 71 ends:
It can also be concluded that the safety levels of the Independent operators in each period, as in the whole period, were significantly lower than those of the combined Corporations.


Yet hon. Gentlemen come to this House, put their hands on their hearts, and say, "Of course, the publicly-owned industries lose money". Of course, if they give the proper safety levels and conditions—it is like the mines—they can lose money—

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden rose—

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has interrupted me a great deal. With respect, I have been interrupted a number of times and I should like some of his hon. Friends to make their contributions today.
I believe that my right hon. Friend must recognise that many of us are bitterly disappointed at his announcement today. We hope that the time that he has given will not be too long but will be reasonable—by "reasonable" I mean about two or three weeks—and that following this time the proposed merger, which I understand was to be finalised today had this decision not been made, should go ahead.
When I hear that 3,000 workers are quite happy in the publicly-owned industry because their working conditions and wages will be better, that in itself is a satisfactory answer as far as I am concerned.
The one union that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been enthusiastic about is B.A.L.P.A. It is interesting to note that B.A.L.P.A. is at this moment representing B.U.A. pilots before the industrial court demanding parity of wages with the pilots of B.O.A.C. So do not let us have any more of this hand on heart business and these great tears being shed about private enterprise. The day that we get fully expanded public ownership in this country I, as a Socialist, shall be perfectly content.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: The whole House realises that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is an extreme Socialist, and, as such, we respect his views. I have listened to the views of extreme Socialists for 25 years—

Mr. Heffer: I am not an extreme Socialist; just a Socialist.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Gentleman is more extreme than the President

of the Board of Trade over this issue. If he denies it, perhaps they will continue the argument elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, is usually a fair debater, but it is unworthy of him to begin with the kind of smears about "the defence of private enterprise and of our own interests" for which we on this side stand. In the year or so before a General Election, I have become used to that kind of smear being put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, I make no apology for saying that the free enterprise system has not only kept this country going but has saved this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—because it is the invisibles that have made the difference, and the export trade not based on nationalised industries but on free enterprise which has done the job and put them straight. These days it is not a question of public ownership, but more a question of management.
The hon. Member for Walton referred to safety regulations. As far as I know, these apply to all airlines, whether publicly or privately owned.
I shall be fairly brief, as a number of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate.
I speak with some diffidence because of all the experts present. I start by declaring an interest, because I am chairman and assistant trainee steward of a small non-scheduled air freight service in the Caribbean. Indirectly, the Minister of Housing was responsible for us getting this going because, when he was Colonial Secretary, he asked me to undertake a constitutional survey in the Caribbean. What they wanted out there was not more paper constitutions, but some decent air freight service in particular. The then existing publicly-owned airline was not producing that service.
I shall not go into details, but with some others who were concerned we started a small operation. Although by the Board of Trade's rating we are probably a fifth force, we have great enthusiasm. We have with us members of the Canadian Air Force, of Bomber Command, and others, and we hope that after ten years of effort, using British aircraft and supplies as far as possible, we may be a fourth force. I do not think that we shall threaten the second force which is being discussed today, but in


the course of the last four years I have obtained a lot of experience about the operation of the big companies, both privately- and publicly-owned.
I have been interested in this subject since I did the Empire Air Mail scheme in the Secretariat in Khartoum in 1935, one of the most far-sighted, publicly-instigated, but privately-managed operations that the air world has ever seen. I was a great believer in Imperial Airways, which is now B.O.A.C. I have watched its successes, and shortcomings, in the succeeding 35 years. It certainly has plenty to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said, this is the fastest expanding industry in the world—aircraft, air transport operations, and the passengers who go with it. But in an expanding market there is room for all, and there is no need to say that everything must be reserved to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
The over-taxation which has gone on under all Governments since the war, the restriction on routes and frequencies, and the non-use of cabotage routes to points of the world within the Commonwealth which we can use without a by-your-leave from I.A.T.A., are some of the things which have to be looked at in operating a second force.
To come to the Motion, and to keep close to it, I make just one or two points. First, I have watched with great interest B.U.A.'s successful development of the United Kingdom airlines in South America, which were abandoned by a nationalised airline for 17 years. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about this. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this to see whether that airline can be continued down the east coast of South America and back up the west coast and through the Caribbean and the Mid-Atlantic route, because this is a route on which B.U.A. has carried the flag, and will be welcomed, ever since the decease of British South American Airways.
Those who study this industry realise that it is the development of freight which is of such paramount importance in the future. It is estimated that by 1980 up to 80 per cent. of traffic may be freight, rather than passenger. I believe that this area will be of vital importance to this country, and in the Northern Caribbean,

where I am concerned, with Bahamas Airways we can between us help collect Caribbean and Central American traffic to the great benefit of this country though the mid-Atlantic route.
This mid-Atlantic route has been neglected in the past by the nationalised airlines. It could have been developed because, with the growing congestion in the North-Eastern part of the United States, over New York in particular, the southern route from Southern California to Texas and Florida could be developed from Miami using the VC-10, an aircraft which has more passenger appeal to date than any aircraft that has ever flown. So on this route there is room for both B.O.A.C. and B.U.A. to expand British services, particularly utilising cabotage routes.
I too should like to pay my tribute to Mr. Freddie Laker for what he has achieved. It is such men who can build up these airlines from fairly elementary beginnings.
The location of Gatwick has been mentioned. For those of us who live in this part of London, and in South-East England, it is far more convenient than Heathrow. If the Government would look at the routes and frequencies, these routes could be developed out of Gatwick to the Continent to the great advantage of decongesting traffic—both air traffic and road and rail traffic, B.U.A., who operate into Gatwick at the moment, could have frequencies and routes developed which would enable them to build up Gatwick and to take some of the load off the future development of Heathrow. An example is the route to Le Touquet. I find Silver Arrow certainly the cheapest. This is not a commercial programme, but it is the most reliable service for example when going to the Council of Europe—for example 4 hours door to door to Paris all the year round. Flying to smaller airports like Beauvais could take some of the traffic off the other air centres near Paris.
A measure of economy could be exercised in having one central booking centre for overseas travel. In Stockholm, I think it was, I noticed that B.O.A.C. was on one corner of the main square, B.E.A. on another, Thomas Cook on another—all three publicly owned—and the older shipping lines on the fourth. Surely there could be a saving of a great deal of


accommodation and duplication on all this.
I am delighted that the Government have agreed that the second force can be established. By setting competition and setting standards, a second employer would be so important these days in case of conflicts of personalities in a nationalised industry. This could help the United Kingdom without damaging the corporations, which give excellent services, and can apply the spur of competition to the benefit of us all.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: This has been a funny old day, really. We have a minute or two left, and I am grateful that I have managed to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. It was to have been a fairly predictable sort of debate, but what we have had is a demonstration of bad-tempered insolence from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and, I am afraid I must also say from the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), neither of whom is here—which caused them to stamp out of the Chamber in indignation—

Mr. Eric Ogden: Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby) rose—

Mr. Onslow: I will make no further reference to them, so, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would prefer not to give way—

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Onslow: Yes, and if he were here, I would give way to him, but he is not, so I must continue.
We could have put this time to good use today by having a long overdue debate on civil aviation and the Report of the Edwards Committee. No one made this more plain than the President of the Board of Trade himself, because part of his speech, following the excellent introduction of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), was clearly withdrawn from some departmental pigeon hole, where it had been kept since last November, in readiness for a debate on the Edwards Report and the White Paper.
The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the important

event of the day. Much as I welcome what the Minister has decided, I must tell him that, to a degree, he has only himself to blame for landing in this predicament. He told us that he was first officially informed at the end of January that B.O.A.C. wished to take up B.U.A.'s offer. If at that time he had made this development public knowledge, the whole matter could have been debated, not in an atmosphere of crisis or great pressure, but with time for all the facts to be brought out, and the important fact that there was misinformation at large would have emerged much earlier in the day.
When the Minister replies perhaps he will explain why things were allowed to go so far behind closed doors. I have a suspicion that the fact that it all became public knowledge was largely accidental and that the intention of the Government was to present the country with a fait accompli in the form of the purchase of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C. having been signed and sealed. But if that is not so, I find it even more strange that public discussion of the matter was not stimulated by the Minister, as it should have been if he sincerely wanted discussion of the White Paper to proceed in the public domain. That should have been his ambition, and it would have ensured that reason would prevail, and that inflated prices could not be charged.
B.U.A. must also take its share of blame in many respects, not least for the extravagant demands that it made when it initially came forward and claimed to take over the whole of B.O.A.C.'s African service. That was not a helpful approach and must have represented a considerable exaggeration of its real needs.
Given that the Minister has taken his decision—and we welcome it—it Is fair to put it to him that some of the attitudes which he has adopted in the past should now be revised. The President of the Board of Trade said that It was not his intention to build fences between one sector and another—between the scheduled and chartered operators—and then he said that he did not intend to stop B.E.A. Air Tours moving into the charter market, which has hitherto been the independents' preserve. The right


hon. Gentleman must understand that there are fences erected against charter companies who wish to move into scheduled traffic areas and that these are not simply those which the C.A.B. erect, but some which are his responsibility, for instance.
An article in a recent issue of Flight dealt with the directive sent to many independent airlines telling them that they must limit the British share of inclusive tour flights on the North Atlantic to 1 per cent. of scheduled flights. This has been subject to hostile comment, particularly since the Minister has not referred the matter to the Air Transport Licensing Board.
The sudden access of authority which the A.T.L.B. has acquired as a result of the Minister's latest decision is to be welcomed. One thing that was needed to make the 1960 Act work properly was real power vested in the Board. In the past this has always been denied to the Board for a number of reasons, notably because there was always an appeal to the Minister, who could not always be relied on to make the right decision.
The new arrangement is to be welcomed, and it may be that, if the Board is genuinely independent, we can afford to wait until after the next election for legislation in this sphere. I hope, however, that we will not have to wait, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that it is still his intention to introduce the Bill for civil aviation, which my hon. Friends have been so anxiously awaiting.
Because of the lack of time I will make only two more points. The first concerns the consumer, who has not always been given the consideration to which he is entitled in this matter. By chance, I received a letter from a constituent today. He writes:
In all the current controversy concerning the future of British United Airways little appears to have been said on behalf of the passenger—their customer. I fly regularly to Scotland and long ago abandoned B.E.A. as I found British United so much better.
He goes on to list the reasons for that decision. While his view may or may not be shared by other air travellers, as matters stand air travellers between England and Scotland have the opportunity of choice, and genuine competition

exists. I am sure that the Minister should want to stimulate that.
I take my second quotation from this week's issue of FLIGHT International, from a column written by a gentleman—or gentlemen—whom I regard as one of the most perceptive critics of the current aviation scene, Mr. Roger Bacon. In his leading paragraph he writes:
Mr. Clive Jenkins, a trade union official, is reported by the Daily Mail to have said of private bids to stop B.O.A.C's take-over of B.U.A.:
'Let them bloody well try. We will resist them in every possible way, including strike action.'
There speaks the true voice of tomorrow's British airline industry—an industry lavishly financed by the taxpayer exclusively in the interests of the unions, filling the air with political hate, bloated cost levels, fare increases, high load factors, unpunctuality, over-booking, strikes, total indifference to the customer, and bad language in that ghastly Welsh accent every time you switch the bloody telly on.
Those are not my words but the comment is one which the House may well endorse, with the slight addition that the same goes when the same things are said in Australian, too.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: One of the more obvious and thus more quoted aphorisms of the Prime Minister has been that Royal Commissions take minutes and waste years. When he first said it, we thought that he meant it as a condemnation of Royal Commissions and other bodies, but we now begin to see that what he meant was that when one wanted years and years to be wasted one appointed a Royal Commission or a Government Committee of some kind. We have seen this more obviously with the Donovan Commission, which was appointed very soon after this Government came to power and on whose report we have not yet had a single piece of legislation. The same criticism can be made of the Edwards Committee, of whose history I should like briefly to remind the House.
As a result of considerable pressure from this side, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) announced, as President of the Board of Trade—that shows how long ago it was—in 1967 that a committee was being esablished to look into civil aviation. The committee was appointed in November, 1967—five months later—and


its report was promised for the spring of 1968. In fact, the report was presented in April, 1969. In November, 1969, a White Paper commenting on the report was laid. We are now in March, 1970, and are having our first debate on the report and the White Paper—although on an Opposition Motion about something quite different—and we are now promised legislation on one or two aspects of the report in the summer of this year.
It will be seen that over three years will have been wasted since the then President of the Board of Trade first announced to the House the appointment of the committee, and in those three years absolutely no action has been taken by the Government to help the independent airlines. The committee was to be set up to investigate, among other things, the part which the independent airlines should play in the aviation scene. The committee reported in many ways favourable to the continuation in being of the independent airlines, yet in the nearly three years that have elapsed, the independent airlines, one after another, have gone out of business or have come off scheduled services. We have heard of most of them in this debate. British Eagle has gone. Autair has given up its scheduled services. B.K.S. and Cambrian have been absorbed. B.U.A. is now looking for a buyer. The only result in those three years has been almost the demise of the leading indepndent airlines.
I should like to say a word or two about the domestic air services, because it seems to me that they are in a very parlous state. In paragraph 34 of the White Paper, the Government categorically state:
But the main need for the immediate future is to consolidate the position of the second carrier"—
that is, British United Airways:
on those routes where competing services already exist, with a view to the eventual removal of limitations on the frequency of its services.
In his opening speech, much of which we welcomed, the President of the Board of Trade rather skated over the effects on the consumer of competition on domestic routes, pointing out that on the international routes the Corporations had plenty of competition from foreign airlines. But he said very rapidly that on the domestic routes the chief competition

was provided by British Railways, another nationalised industry. He appeared to have forgotten that he said in the White Paper:
the main need for the immediate future is to consolidate the position of the second carrier on those routes where competing services already exist, with a view to the eventual removal of limitations on the frequentcy of its services.
There was considerable inconsistency in the views expressed by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon and the apparent policy of the Government.
It must be remembered that B.E.A. makes profit on not a single one of its domestic routes. They are all loss-making and all subsidised by the taxpayer, or indirectly by B.E.A.'s international routes. Several years ago I suggested that there is no place for a nationalised airline on domestic routes in this country. One can see the argument for a nationalised flag carrier on the international routes where it would have to compete with large foreign nationalised airlines, but it has always seemed to me that the domestic arena could very properly be left to independent airlines which, as we have seen, are able to make profits in spheres where the nationalised industries do not, as B.U.A. did in South America.
There is no need for British air passengers to be carried in the United Kingdom by a nationalised airline which loses money at the taxpayers' expense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is true. If there were independent airlines to carry traffic on the domestic trunk routes, that should be encouraged and B.E.A. should be encouraged to get off them because the financial position of B.E.A. would thereby be improved. This aspect of domestic air routes should be looked into again.
As for the second force, about which we have heard so much this afternoon, one must recognise that it is a very difficult problem for the present. It is a classic chicken and egg situation. No second-force airline will be strong enough to compete with B.O.A.C. and the large nationalised flag carriers unless it has important scheduled routes. It cannot get those scheduled routes, according to what the President of the Board of Trade said, until it is large enough to compete with B.O.A.C. It does not get scheduled routes unless it is big enough, and unless it is big enough it cannot have scheduled routes.
How can those routes be provided for the independent airlines? The Edwards Committee suggested that some should be provided by depriving the two nationalised corporations of a number of their routes, but in the White Paper the President of the Board of Trade almost categorically refuses to do this. In paragraph 39 he starts by using words which seem to suggest that he will be encouraging by saying:
The Government would welcome the emergence, by amalgamation, of such a new airline if it resulted in the strengthening of the industry as a whole.
Yet paragraph 41 says:
The Government cannot accept that the formation of such an airline should be made conditional upon the transfer to it of a significant part of the Airline Corporations' route networks, as distinct from double designation in appropriate cases.
If there is to be a second force, from where will the scheduled routes for that second force come? One or two may come from double designation, as the President of the Board of Trade suggested, but the only obvious one at the moment is the trans-Atlantic route where there are already 19 carriers in fierce competition and where, as he said this afternoon, it would be very difficult for an independent airline to break in starting from scratch. If therefore this new, to-be-created second force is not to have some of the existing routes run by the corporations, it must look for new scheduled routes which have not yet been taken by the nationalised airlines. But, as everybody knows, the nationalised corporations have already taken unto themselves, with the encouragement and blessing of the A.T.L.B. and of the President of the Board of Trade, all the plum schedule routes which exist in the world anyway. So there is nowhere at all for the independent airlines to go.
Whoever heard of B.O.A.C. being refused a good route for which it applied? Whoever heard of the A.T.L.B. turning down an application from B.O.A.C. or B.E.A.? They always get what they want, but the independents, when they apply in competition with the nationalised airlines, are always left with the dirty end of the stick and always get the minor routes, whereas the Corporations get the major routes. It is only when the corporations have failed to make a go of the routes—as B.O.A.C. did in South America—and give them

up that they are handed over to an independent airline which promptly makes them profitable.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman has conveniently forgotten to mention first the very unprofitable old Imperial Airways routes in various parts of the world, which B.O.A.C. simply had to take over, and second the services to the Highlands and Islands which B.E.A. has to provide, all loss making and without subsidy.

Mr. Fortescue: First, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) talked of Imperial Airways. It is really fascinating that the party opposite always talks about the past when it should be thinking of the future. It is one of the characteristics of the Labour Party that it loves to dwell on the 1920s and 1930s. We are talking about the 1970s. As for the Highland and Island routes, I asked the President of the Board of Trade in the House the other day whether he would accept applications from independent airlines to take over these unprofitable routes from B.E.A. I was howled down by hon. Members opposite almost before I got my question out, and the President of the Board of Trade gave me a dusty answer. For some reason B.E.A. likes to keep hold of these unprofitable routes because it likes to have the power to its elbow.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: No.

Mr. Fortescue: If that is not so, why does B.E.A. insist on continuing to fly on loss-making domestic routes?

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that if in future an independent takes over those loss-making services it will know through the White Paper that it will get a subsidy.

Mr. Fortescue: That just is not logical. B.U.A. took over the South American route upon which B.O.A.C. was making a loss without a subsidy and it made a profit.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: No.

Mr. Fortescue: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. This is what happened. This is a fact. It is what did happen and not what might happen. The hon. Gentleman can shake his head until the cows come home but he is wrong. We


have a situation on the route pattern which the Biblical quotation fits more perfectly than any other. Adapting it slightly—"To him that hath shall be given and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he thinketh he hath". This is precisely what happens with the "haves" and "have nots" in the air route pattern of this country. The big boys who have all the routes get the others that come up and the little boys who do not have any scheduled services never get anything for which they apply. So the President of the Board of Trade must make up his mind how this second force is to be created. He has agreed that it should be created, but he says that it cannot have any of the corporation's routes. This does not show any consistency at all. He cannot create the second force without there being new routes for it, and without the new routes the second force will not come into existence.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to B.E.A. for the good job it does on its external international routes, and he has said that it is making a loss on internal or domestic routes, even with a subsidy.

Mr. Fortescue: Mr. Fortescue indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman may not have meant that, but he said it. He went on to say that private airlines could make a success of it, even though B.E.A. is making a loss. How could a private company do that? It does not seem that B.U.A. has proved that in the recent past.

Mr. Fortescue: I do not blame him, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me. I have explained that, because B.U.A. has been running its affairs in South America more efficiently than B.O.A.C. did, because it cut its overheads, and because it obtained permissions from South American Governments which B.O.A.C. was unable to obtain, it was able to make a profit where B.O.A.C. made a loss. If a private enterprise company with slimmer overheads than a nationalised corporation has can do that in one place, there is no reason why it should not do it in another.
The private enterprise companies operate more for the convenience of passengers. We have heard already today that it is more pleasant to fly internally by an independent airline than by B.E.A. I do

not know whether any hon. Gentleman present has ever flown from London to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Belfast by both B.E.A. and B.U.A., but, if there is one such Member present, I should like to know which he prefers. There is no doubt in my mind that every passenger will say that he would rather go by B.U.A. because the service is better. Moreover, the service given by B.E.A. on the domestic routes is now far better than it used to be before B.U.A. was running in competition. That is what competition has done.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider the basic reason why B.E.A. continues to fly on domestic routes at a loss to the taxpayer. Why should this not be examined again, in the light of the necessity to create a second force? Second, will he explain, now or at another stage, how he imagines that a second force can be created without routes for it being taken from the Corporations?

9.18 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, this has been a relatively unusual Parliamentary day. We welcome the change of policy announced by the President of the Board of Trade. We do not rejoice at the background to his change of policy. The right hon. Gentleman used strong words. He said that he had been seriously misled in a certain conversation which he had had. Generally, in most aspects of life, there are two sides to any question, but we presume that the President of the Board of Trade weighed those grave words seriously.
We do not welcome that background, but we do rejoice that the Minister, finding that he had made a provisional decision on what turned out to be a misunderstanding, and that there was a chance of a potential second force being born, has withdrawn his provisional approval to the B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. merger. We are glad that the Minister has in substance, therefore, accepted the main purpose of our Motion.
In the light of that acceptance of the main purpose of our Motion, I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the matter to a vote tonight, and, after the Minister of State has spoken, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) will


ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. I think that for that reason the debate will take its place in Parliamentary history, for there cannot be all that number of Motions of censure which have been withdrawn because of an announcement by the Minister opening the debate.
Having paid tribute to the sensible way in which the President of the Board of Trade announced his decision, it remains for me to ask whether perhaps the Minister and the Government could have saved the country and all of us a few days of anxiety and obviated the necessity for the Motion being tabled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, said that he took the first opportunity he could after the announcement of the B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. discussions to visit the Minister of State, because he could not believe that the President would have approved, even provisionally, of any such merger if he had known that there was any possibility of a Caledonian-B.U.A. agreement. My hon. Friend expressed his full acceptance that the Board of Trade had no knowledge of what now emerges as parallel discussions between Caledonian and B.U.A.
He warned the Minister of State of them. He entirely accepted, as he explained in his speech, the Minister of State's assurance that he knew nothing about them. The question remains for the House to consider whether the President himself, for whom the decision was, having been warned by his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, could have taken an earlier opportunity to tell the House, the country, and all those concerned that, in the light of the possibility of agreement between B.U.A. and Caledonian, he would withdraw his provisional acceptance of the B.U.A.B.O.A.C. merger.
Having failed to act on that information, the President can scarcely blame the Opposition if we table a Motion of censure. He has explained to the House that the Government reached their decision before the Motion of censure was on the Order Paper. Had the announcement been made earlier, there would have been no need for a Motion of censure.
We on this side join the President in the unstinted tribute he paid to B.O.A.C., to B.E.A., and to the independents. However, because B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are world-famed, established, great, airlines, with innumerable achievements and high performance to their credit, and because the Edwards Report largely focuses on the structure of the industry, the debate has tended to concentrate on the independents.
All of us can confess—some of us with sorrow, a very few of us with satisfaction—that the climate for the independents in the last few years has been discouraging. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) mentioned the relationship between A.T.L.B. and the independents and the havoc that the Board's unpredictable decisions have played in the expectations and life span of the independents. Nearly all of us regret the passing of British Eagle and a number of other independents.
The President boasted that the Government, in setting up the Edwards Inquiry, had set in hand the first independent inquiry into civil aviation since the war. So be it; let the Government have the credit for that. One of the benefits of setting up an independent inquiry was surely to wipe the slate clean of the mistakes that had been made before—mistakes made by both parties, because it is true that under a Conservative Government agreement was refused to the Cunard-British Eagle licence application. Under the present Government, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Minister of Aviation, the independent airlines were denied any hope of ever getting a sniff of a scheduled air route licence.
Because the independents have had such a discouraging climate, it has become all the more important that the post-Edwards treatment of them should create a new climate. The Edwards Report raised many important issues and the President of the Board of Trade chose today's debate to deal with some. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) chided the Opposition for failing to concentrate on the Edwards Report today. The House will recognise that it is for the Government to find time to debate a report resulting from a Committee of Inquiry set up by them. We on this side of the House have constantly urged the Government to find time for a


debate on Edwards and on their White Paper. It is not for us to be chided if the House has not had the opportunity to debate Edwards or the White Paper.
The essence of Edwards for today's debate can be found in a single sentence on page 260 where the Report, which was unanimous, says:
… we would like to see in this expanding industry a substantial and efficient additional source of airline innovation and management.
For shorthand purposes we are apt to refer to this additional innovation and management as competition. Hon. Members who pointed out that there is ample competition for B.O.A.C. in many of the international routes are right. The word "competition" is a shorthand we use for the stimuli that comes to any industry when there is access for newcomers and scope and encouragement for innovation and enterprise. B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in their continental activities, are already in fierce competition, although not everywhere because where pool arrangements operate the pressures of competition are alleviated. There was no competition for B.E.A. on domestic trunk routes.
Hon. Members have paid tribute to the benefits that competition on the domestic trunk routes has brought to the British traveling public.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Nonsense.

Sir K. Joseph: Edwards is particularly strong about this. It says, at page 120:
All the intevention, interference, efficiency audits, etc., in the world will never be as effective a spur to efficiency as the prospect of losing business to others who serve the customers better either in price or in service.
The evidence of public choice is that both B.E.A. and the independents have improved their service to the public on the domestic trunk routes. There is ample scope for increased enterprise and innovation elsewhere. B.U.A. took up the B.O.A.C. South American service and made a profit where B.O.A.C. had lost money. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that this was explained because B.U.A. got a higher frequency of operations than B.O.A.C. Edwards paid tribute to the skill of B.U.A. in converting a route loss into a profit without ever mentioning the qualification which the hon. Gentleman introduced.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that B.O.A.C. was operating that route with Comets and wanted to operate it with V.C.10s but never had the frequencies that B.U.A. got.

Sir K. Joseph: I rest on the fact that, knowing all these things, Edwards unanimously gave credit to B.U.A. for the transformation. The independents also deserve credit for pioneering the inclusive tour market. All that we are saying, and the Government are accepting it in their White Paper, is that every industry including the airline industry benefits from additional sources of commercial, entrepreneurial, technical innovation and enterprise. This is not because B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are lacking these qualities but simply because the scope for increasing them brings benefits to the public and the nation.
I must take a moment to refer to the allegations made about the safety record of the independents. I am not an expert in this subject and I have to reply on the Edwards Report. It is clearly shown, on page 207, that while the other airlines who are grouped together and who do not include British Eagle or B.U.A., and who flew a much smaller number of miles, have a worse record than the nationalised airlines, B.U.A. has a better safety record than B.E.A., although worse than B.O.A.C. The allegations of low safety standards in the independent world—

Mr. Russell Kerr: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

Sir K. Joseph: The allegations—

Mr. Kerr: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gurlay): Order. When Mr. Deputy Speaker is on his feet the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman should resume their seats.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government accept the second force in their White Paper. We feared that the President of the Board of Trade would prove faithless to his own White Paper and that it would turn out to be mere lip service to the theme of innovation, access for newcomers, and competition. A second force may not come about. We on this side of the


House hope that it will, and so do the Government. The hon. Member for Nuneaton does not. He depicts the nationalised corporations as nervous giants afraid of the pigmy independents. He gives us a picture of timidity and lack of self-confidence which we are sure is not really true. We are sure that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have ample self-confidence, based on their great records, not to he frightened of a second force. We agree with the Edwards Committee when it says on page 107 of its report that it believes that
… a second force can be made viable … without serious adverse effect on B.O.A.C.
Obviously, the Government, with all the careful qualifications in their White Paper, accept that point of view in general.
We are very glad that the Government are standing by their White Paper and that the Minister gave a firm reply to Mr. Clive Jenkins. I want to make it plain that we on this side of the House entirely accept that the implications for workers of any change of management are an absolutely legitimate factor to be taken into account by those who make a decision on that change of management, and that it is entirely legitimate that those who represent the employees should make their views known. What we quarrel with, and what I think the Government quarrel with, is the threat of strike action to see that the Government do or do not do any particular thing.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on average B.U.A. workers are £7 to ££8 a week worse off than B.O.A.C. workers?

Sir K. Joseph: That is absolutely legitimate as a subject for the knowledge of all those concerned. It is not a legitimate subject for the threat of a strike, not against the employers but against the public interest and the Government elected by the people as a whole. It is an attempt to coerce the duly-elected Government of the people. That is why the President of the Board of Trade is right not to accept such coercion. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise is not argument.

Sir K. Joseph: But we have to ask who encouraged the present situation, who set the climate in which Mr. Clive Jenkins

made his threat. We have to ask why first the dockers and now Mr. Clive Jenkins threaten strikes.

An Hon. Member: What about the farmers?

Sir K. Joseph: The farmers have not theatened to withdraw their labour. They are spending their leisure time demonstrating, and doing so peacefully.
We are here seeing yet another consequence of the Prime Minister's capitulation to trade union pressure last summer—[Interruption.]—a capitulation that has caused what the right hon. Lady the First Secretary describes as an avalanche of wage claims and a capitulation that has encouraged threats of coercion, of which we are complaining.
We recognise that the disputes going on at Heathrow are quite unconnected with threats of coercion, but because the news this evening is so contradictory we would be grateful if the Minister would tell us the latest position known to the Government about the state of play in connection with the strike at Heathrow.
We rejoice that the Government have accepted the substance of our Motion. We hope that the Minister will answer the points made in the debate and, after he has spoken, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South will seek leave to withdraw the Motion.

9.36 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): This has turned out to be a useful debate. The Motion was never necessary and, in the event, the debate has established with great clarity how consistently the Government have pursued the policy set out in the White Paper.
Some of my hon. Friends may disagree with the White Paper. That is for them to say. A statement of Government policy is enshrined in the White Paper and the essence of what my right hon. Friend said in rebuttal of the Motion—I repeat it tonight—is that we have been consistent in our support of that policy.
While the White Paper follows the Edwards Report very closely indeed, it differs in two important respects. One is the decision to establish an Airways


Board instead of a loose Holdings Board as proposed by the Committee. The other, which is directly relevant to the Motion, is the decision that the formation of a second-force airline cannot be made conditional on the transfer of any significant part of the public air corporations' route network. If any hon. Member has not read that, I emphasise it. We are for a second force on the conditions set out in the White Paper, and the major condition is that it should not rest on a significant transfer of routes from the publicly-owned air corporations.
The debate has demonstrated the emptiness of the Motion. [Interruption.] It is entirely for the Opposition whether to withdraw or vote on the Motion. The Motion does not in any way challenge the Government's policy, and hon. Gentlemen opposite do well not to challenge it. This is something for which the industry has been in genuine need for a long time because it is something that previous Administrations completely failed to provide.
The Motion accuses the Government of undermining their own policy by saying that the proposed purchase of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C. was acceptable in principle. But there was never any question of the Government undermining their own policy. If the policy was being undermined, then this was the result of events—and of one event in particular, which was the decision of British and Commonwealth to sell out.
As my right hon. Friend made clear, the Motion ignores the fact that it was British and Commonwealth which approached B.O.A.C. It also ignores the fact that it was British and Commonwealth which led us to believe that there was no prospect that this aspect of the Government's policy, as stated in the White Paper—the possibility of a second force—could be achieved. We now know that this was not so. Surely, if anyone was undermining the White Paper, it was the leading independent operator who chose to sell out to a public corporation. The Opposition's censure has been delivered to the wrong address.
It is no answer to say, as some Members opposite have tried to say, that British and Commonwealth was forced into the action it took. The Opposition

cannot have it both ways. If B.U.A. concluded, because of the White Paper policy, which the Opposition do not challenge, and which precluded a significant transfer of routes, that it saw no future in a merger, as envisaged in the White Paper, why then did it engage in prolonged and serious negotiations with Caledonian throughout the period in which it was offering itself for purchase by B.O.A.C.? Either it believed that there was no future without guaranteed substantial routes or that there was a future in joining up with Caledonian, even though the routes were not guaranteed.

Mr. McMaster: In a business like this, is not there the alternative of seeing who will give the highest price for the airline?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that interjection is relevant. In any case, it would be a fruitless policy, unless the airline believed that it could make a go of it with Caledonian even though it would not have the routes it wanted.
It is well to remind the House of what B.U.A.'s ambitions were. B.U.A. proposed to the Edwards Committee that a very substantial proportion of B.O.A.C.'s routes should be carved off and given, not to an amalgamation of independent airlines, but to B.U.A. alone. The least of its five alternatives was that the whole of B.O.A.C.'s African network should be transferred to it. This is one of the more profitable parts of B.O.A.C.'s total network that supports B.O.A.C.'s efforts elsewhere in the world. What is more, B.U.A. wanted these transfers to be guaranteed before it put in any of its own money. How could any Government do this? Is this what the Opposition really want?
Granted that no prospect of a merger was in sight, and granted that the alternatives for British and Commonwealth were either to sell out to B.O.A.C. or to close down, then the purchase of B.U.A. by B.O.A.C. would clearly be the better of those two alternatives, and one to which no objections of policy could be made. It would not be the result envisaged in the White Paper, but it would, at least, ensure that B.U.A.'s important routes continued to be properly served, and that 3,000 jobs were not put in peril.
A takeover, either by a public Corporation or by a private company, would set


up certain difficulties, and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has pointed to them. I wish to assure him that the Government have no desire to see the disappearance of competition on the domestic trunk routes that are at present served by B.E.A. It does not follow, however, that this would have been the final and inevitable result. It is perfectly feasible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) pointed out, for competition to ensue between the two public corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Indeed, competition is growing between British Rail and B.E.A. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, British Rail is fighting back. This is competition between two nationalised transport undertakings. Just as competition is possible between British Rail and B.E.A., so would competition be possible, if B.O.A.C. took over B.U.A., between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. on the domestic trunk routes. The A.T.L.B. can license another airline to serve these routes in competition with B.E.A., and licences have been applied for by Caledonian. This is possible now and is being done. Caledonian has applied for a revocation of licence from B.U.A. which is currently running the routes. Caledonian has now done that. It would be equally possible for B.O.A.C. to arrange with B.U.A. to run this particular airline if no other airline applied to the A.T.L.B. for transfer of one or more of these routes. They would have to prove their case and it is possible for them to do so.
This brings me to a point which was made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). He mentioned the rôle of the A.T.L.B. as an agency that would govern the monopoly position. This question could be referred to the Monopolies Commission. The Government have a discretionary power which may be used in regard to this or any other industrial matter of this magnitude. I join with those who think that this is not necessary as the procedures of A.T.L.B. can sufficiently deal with the question of monopoly or competition because A.T.L.B. operates on a wide remit. This to many of us is a reason for thinking that it must be reformed, but to many more it is a source of strength to which A.T.L.B. could address itself in hearing an application to consider questions such as the public interest and

the monopoly arrangements on a particular line.
The Motion before the House urges that the establishment of a second-force independent airline should not be frustrated by the implementation of the proposal that B.O.A.C. should take over B.U.A.—or, to put it another way, that we should not allow British and Commonwealth to frustrate the White Paper policy. I can only quote what my right hon. Friend said with crystal clarity earlier today in pursuance of the White Paper policy. He said:
… it is clear that my proper course is to withhold approval from the investment proposal put to me by B.O.A.C. until the situation has been clarified.
This is not to prejudge the ultimate destiny of B.U.A.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is always difficult for hon. Gentlemen to address the House against a background of a number of conversations.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Is it not the usual custom in a debate in the House to hear arguments for and against a Motion, with the Chair usually calling for a speaker for the Motion and one against? But when there is unanimity, can the Question not just be put so that we may get on with the next business, which is much more important than this? There is no argument on this Motion and there is no debate.

Mr. Speaker: That is a most ingenious point of order.

Mr. Roberts: What my hon. Friend regards as unanimity in the House is a broad consensus in favour of the White Paper policy.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did not say that. I said there was unanimity between the two Front Benches.

Mr. Roberts: That is the policy which my right hon. Friend sustained as soon as he realised that the circumstances were such that he ought to redress the position so that this policy could reasonably go forward.
Returning to the Motion, there is a final reference to the threat of industrial action. What my right hon. Friend has said conclusively shows that there has not, is not and there will not be any question of the Government's policy being affected by threats of this kind. This is


quite definite. This is a parliamentary democracy. It is also a country where our trade unions have every right to press the claims of their members. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) rightly pointed to a marked disparity in the wages paid to the employees of B.U.A. as compared with those paid in the nationalised corporations. It is right that trade unions and their leaders should point to these disparities and argue for reform. They would have the support of everyone in putting forward their case, but they would have no support from anyone in endeavouring to influence Parliament and the Government of the day by industrial action.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Since I have constituents involved, will my right hon. Friend assure us that in his reconsideration of the problem the attitude of the bulk of the staff affected will weigh heavily with him?

Mr. Roberts: This is a matter which must be taken into account, but what my hon. Friend regards as being a one-way opinion may not turn out to be the position.

Mr. Bidwell: But, if it does?

Mr. Roberts: We shall have to weigh all views in deciding what is our best course. In any case, the rôle of a trade union in such a situation is to press its legitimate claims to whoever legitimately takes over or continues the running of that airline.

Mr. McMaster: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I want time to refer to the request of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) for some information on Heathrow.
The accusation has also been made that the problems which we are discussing result from delay on the part of the Government. That is manifestly absurd. This Government inherited the policy vacuum created by our predecessors. This Government tackled the difficult task, which the previous Administration found too difficult, of working out proper objectives and policies for the industry. We set up the Edwards Committee, cer-

tainly not as a way of postponing decisions but to help us come to good decisions. Its report was published last spring, and no reasonable person would expect a report of this authority and magnitude to have been produced more quickly. The Government took some months to reach their decisions on it, and no reasonable person could say that they were easy decisions which could or should have baen thrown off in a few weeks. We are now working on legislation which must inevitably be no less demanding of time and of proper consideration. The work is in hand. It is proceeding expeditiously, and we are aiming to produce legislation enshrining the White Paper policy this Session.
There is a tendency on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to represent themselves in these matters as the champions of the independent airlines. I have no time now to go into that piece of theology. The fact is that the A.T.L.B. procedures have bestowed favours pretty equally between the independents and the public Corporations—

Mr. Burden: Mr. Burden rose—

Mr. Roberts: No, I am sorry. I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I come now to the question which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East put to me about the position at Heathrow. I cannot add much to what hon. Members probably know already, except that an inquiry into the current and threatened disruption at London Airport will be set up by the First Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind hon. Members that it is discourteous to carry on conversations whilst the Minister is addressing the House.

Mr. Roberts: The First Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade have decided, following consultation with all concerned, to appoint an inquiry into the current and threatened disruption at London Airport. The membership, terms of reference and arrangements for hearings will be announced as soon as possible. The organisations directly concerned have already been informed of the decision to appoint the inquiry.
The employees' side of the N.J.C. for Civil Air Transport did not meet until


this afternoon. We have not, therefore, had the benefit of their considered views on the proposed terms of reference or on the background conditions aimed at maintaining the status quo which we hope will enable the inquiry to go forward in an atmosphere of industrial peace. I do not doubt that these matters are being pursued vigorously at this very moment.
Nevertheless we—and I am sure that the House will join me—hope that the decision to hold an inquiry will lead immediately to normal working at the airport and put an end to the disruption of air services and to the deplorable inconvenience and, indeed, hardship which has been suffered by the travelling public.
I should add that we are aware of the allegations that have been made, and we will ensure that the terms of reference are wide enough to permit an investigation into the circumstances in which the contract was let—that is, the contract with G.A.S.——as well as its economic and operational merit. I do not doubt that these matters will be pursued fully at the inquiry. Indeed, the inquiry may propose certain matters to be looked into.

Mr. William Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend allow representatives of trade unions to appear before the commission or inquiry to state their views?

Mr. Roberts: I should expect that to happen. I cannot anticipate the composition of the inquiry. It has still to be set up. However, I should expect that evidence from the sources to which my hon. Friend has referred would be among such evidence that the inquiry would need to consider.
I turn now to the position at the airport tonight. Heathrow closed at 8 p.m. this evening when the fire officers, as they have been doing for the past few weeks, came off. If the fire officers

follow I.P.C.S. instructions the airport will stay closed tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but it is not certain that they will decide to do this. I have been waiting for some message which might make it possible for me to give the House further information—

Mr. Corfield: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair does not need any help. The hon. Gentleman can withdraw the Motion only with the leave of the House. He does not seem to have leave.

Mr. Roberts: I had hoped to be able to give fuller and later information about the position at Heathrow before the debate concluded. That is all that I can say at the moment.
The Government have stood by their White Paper policy. They have not deferred to the Opposition. They are implementing their own policy. No one can say with any certainty what the outcome of these bids may be, but it could be that the B.O.A.C. bid may be the one that is successful.

Question put,
That this House deplores the approval in principle by Her Majesty's Government of the proposals by the British Overseas Airways Corporation to take over British United Airways, thereby undermining their own policy for civil air transport as stated in Command Paper No. 4213; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the establishment of a second force independent airline is not frustrated either by the implementation of this proposal or by surrender to threats of industrial action.

Mr. Corfield: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One "No" is enough, and as quietly as possible.

Question negatived.

LONDON AUTHORITIES (TRANSFER OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Carol Johnson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the London Authorities (Transfer of Housing Estates, etc.) Order 1970 (S.I., 1970, No. 171), dated 5th February 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber please do so quietly.

Mr. Johnson: The Order which is the subject of this Prayer is made under the provisions of the London Government Act, 1963. That Act dealt, among many other matters, with the transfer of housing accommodation within the Greater London Area and provided for a programme of transfers to be submitted to the Minister by April 1970, though it did not say that the transfers must take place by that date, nor, indeed, by any date. The Act did, however, provide that the Minister should submit to Parliament an Order covering any agreement arrived at between the G.L.C. and the borough councils if requested so to do by the parties concerned. Perhaps I might explain briefly the background to the Order. In December 1967 the G.L.C. proposed a programme for housing transfers in four separate stages. Stage one dealt with the transfer of new estates on completion, but the Order is not concerned with these in any way. Stage two related to the then existing G.L.C. estates, some of which are included in the Order and are the subject of the debate. Stages three and four need not concern us, for the third stage was not to be proceeded with for some time, and then only after the impact of the stage two changes had been assessed, while stage four was left over until 1974 and 1975.
At the beginning of my remarks, which I shall keep short because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, I wish to make it quite plain that in tabling this Prayer I intend no attack on the G.L.C., nor do I seek to argue that in no circumstances, and at no time, should the G.L.C. arrange the transfer of some of its housing

accommodation to the boroughs. My opposition is devoted solely to the Order and to the present transfers, and I hope to show that there is a valid case for argument on the merits or demerits of what the Order contains.
I shall seek to establish three main arguments in support of the Prayer. The first is that the authorities concerned, the Greater London Council and the acquiescing London boroughs, have gone ahead with agreements about transfer without satisfying themselves that such agreements would commend themselves to the Minister, and that, therefore, it is right for Parliament to say whether or not the Order should be confirmed.
Second, in the borough of Lewisham, part of which I represent, we have a special interest in the matter, since it is one of the authorities most affected. About 6,400 dwellings are involved, and, whatever the attitude of the borough council may have been, the Labour Opposition on the council and public opinion generally have consistently and persistently opposed these proposals from the very start.
Third, at a time when housing needs in London in general and in Lewisham in particular are so great—we still have no fewer than 10,500 families on our waiting list—the proposed transfer of a small part of the G.L.C. estates is a mere irrelevance, providing not a single additional housing unit. If there is a challenge to the Order at what some may think is a late hour, this is entirely because a greater London Council throughout these negotiations failed to take the Minister into account, despite the indications given by him to the authority at an early date that he would wish to consider the matter before final decisions were taken.
This was made clear in Circular 1/65, issued on 20th January, 1965, in which, in the section dealing with the subject of transfer of housing under the 1963 Act, the Minister made it clear that he did not think that the G.L.C. would be able to initiate substantial transfers until it had reviewed the housing needs and prospects of Greater London as a whole. So far as I know, that still remains to be done.
The circular went on to say that the Minister would keep the matter under


review and return to it in due course, but the authority did not wait for him to return to it. In December, 1967, although the G.L.C. knew that the Minister had not yet taken any further action, it decided as a matter of policy that, in addition to any new developments, it would offer the London boroughs about a third of its stock of existing houses.
What is surprising is that this decision, which was originally intended to cover no fewer than 70,000 houses, should be arrived at, apparently, without any detailed research or consideration of the total London position and without setting out at all clearly the reasons why this scale of transfer and this timing was right.
Thereafter, a working party was set up to consider the offer in detail and, as a result of its report, negotiations were opened with the individual boroughs, including, of course, Lewisham. Then, in January of this year, the G.L.C. asked the Minister to make the Order giving effect to their agreement, although, if my information is correct, at no time throughout this period was any formal approach made to the Minister to ensure that he approved of the policy and the procedure.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister's officials were on the working party throughout the whole period that it was working?

Mr. Johnson: I am aware that there were observers on the working party, but the circumstances were entirely dictated by the directive given by the Minister at the very beginning.
Perhaps I might now be allowed to turn to the Order itself. The agreement relating to the second stage did not after all include the 70,000 houses originally proposed by the G.L.C., but only about 46,000, which were to be transferred to 25 London boroughs, who were the only boroughs who agreed to come into the scheme. As I said, of those 6,400 are in the Borough of Lewisham, and of these at least half are in South Lewisham, so I have a personal interest in the matter.
The first thing to note about this proposal is that the dwellings covered by

the Order represent only a small proportion—less than 22 per cent.—of the total G.L.C. holding of some 210,000, and this very limited extent is a relevant factor in assessing the value of the Order.
As I indicated earlier, at some unspecified time in the future a further transfer is to be made, but even after that the G.L.C. intends to retain between 140,000 and 150,000 houses to carry out its permanent housing functions, and it will thus continue to be responsible for the bulk of London's housing, some 70 per cent. Indeed, I have heard that the G.L.C. now thinks that its estimate of 150,000 is too low and may have to be revised.
Against this background, which I have hurriedly sketched, it is difficult to make much sense of the limited and partial devolution proposed. What is the object of the operation? Certainly the people of Lewisham have never been told. A full explanation is called for. Despite all the effort which must have been involved in the negotiations, they do not add one additional housing unit towards London's desperate and growing needs. They also seem to have made a complete mockery of the Minister's initial intimation, in the circular to which I referred, that the job he really wanted the G.L.C. to undertake first was a review of the housing needs and prospects of Greater London as a whole.
I suggest, in this connection, that it would be desirable that some consideration should be given to what the South-East Planning Council said in its Report on the Greater London Development Plan. I will not quote the long paragraph on the housing needs of London and the need for a London-wide strategy, but note should be taken of the view which the Council strongly expressed about the desirability of having one housing authority for all London. Whether or not one agrees with that view, it should be taken into account.
On the question of local opinion, it is rather surprising that at no time was any attempt made by the authorities concerned to consult the people most affected, the council tenants.

Mr. Brian Batsford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the G.L.C. has had many meetings on these matters with residents' associations?

Mr. Johnson: In Lewisham we failed to get a councillor from the G.L.C. to come to explain the scheme to us. [Interruption.] At a time when "participation" is on the lips of so many politicians, it is valid to question why no effort was made to communicate with the tenants. On the contrary, the working party turned the idea down and it is interesting to note that in paragraph 24 of its First Report it said:
The criteria we have put forward for selecting estates for transfer have not included the wishes of the tenants of those estates. We do not consider it would be practicable to take account of these and there is nothing in the 1963 Act or in the Minister's Circular 1/65 to suggest that we should. It is unlikely that tenants would be unanimous on the matter"—
It is correct about that—
and their views would probably be largely determined by any difference in rent policy followed by the G.L.C. and the Borough inheriting the estate.
The rent question might well be a backlash to any transfer, as the Lewisham Council Labour opposition pointed out, and it would surely have been better to have faced it from the start. It must have been obvious that many transfers would affect the community life of estates, particularly as at least half of them involved the splitting of estates between the Greater London Council and the borough or, in one case, two boroughs. There would inevitably have been management problems which should have been faced at the outset.
I want to refer to the attitude taken to the scheme from the very start in Lewisham itself. The labour opposition on the Lewisham Council opposed the proposals, for which, incidentally, no real arguments were advanced at any time. That opposition was based on the following sound factors. There was no housing gain. It was impossible to get a clear picture of what it would ultimately cost Lewisham in terms of finance. There was lack of firm information about the future. Despite the transfer, the Greater London Council was to retain the right to nominate 65 per cent. of the tenants when transferred properties became vacant. There was no indication that the Minister approved of the scheme. Last, but for obvious reasons not least, the difference in rents payable by tenants of the G.L.C. and the borough council was a significant factor. That last factor is

important, particularly in the case of the post-war properties, where there is a marked disparity in the rents charged by the two authorities.
The reason for the Greater London rents being lower is to be found in the confession made by Mr. Horace Cutler, The Greater London Council housing chairman, who said:
At the moment new building is paid for partly from the profits of older property and if this were lost the remaining Council tenants or the ratepayers would have to make up the difference.
This was simply transferring to the borough council a very real rents problem.
We of the Labour opposition on the council tried to canvass opinion amongst the tenants. We called meetings, and we invited the Greater London Council councillors to attend them and to explain, but they failed to do so. It was impossible to get from the Greater London Council any clear statement of the reasons for the present proposals. In the end, because of the general concern, my local Labour Party thought it desirable to make the strongest possible representations to Her Majesty's Government. This was done in a resolution sent to the Prime Minister last October. We then found out what everyone else could have found out, and what the Greater London Council itself could have found out, what the position was.
In a letter sent from the Prime Minister's political office on 30th October last, it was said:
It is the case that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has no powers under the London Government Act, 1963, to vary the terms of agreement reached between the Greater London Council and a London Borough for the transfer of housing property under that Act. It is for either House of Parliament to annul any order dealing with such transfers if they consider the proposals unacceptable.
For these reasons, and in these circumstances, I think that the House will be well advised to decide that it cannot endorse proposals which are irrelevant to London's present true housing needs, and which merely change slightly the pattern of public housing without making any material or permanent improvement in it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As we have already been reminded by the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), many hon. Members wish to speak. Brief speeches will help.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The Order which we are now asked to annul represents two years of hard work, discussion and negotiation between the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs. It is due to operate this day week, and I am therefore sure that the House will have in mind that to disturb at the last moment the result of this detailed negotiation would be a very serious matter, causing a great deal of dislocation, confusion and waste of public money.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) referred, very rightly I thought, to the position of the Minister. He said, very generously, that he was not attacking the Greater London Council, but he went on to say that he thought the Greater London Council had not taken into account—I think those were his words—the position of the Minister. We should examine the position of the Minister. It is my information that these discussions over the last two years have been conducted with the full knowledge and, indeed, helpful co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. For two years, therefore, the Department for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible has known of these proposals. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will challenge the assertion that until last month, when he had already signed the Order and when his Private Secretary wrote to the Leader of Greater London Council, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Department had given the slightest indication to the Greater London Council that there would be any hesitation on his part either in making the Order or in commending it to Parliament.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, South told the House a very significant thing. Up until February the right hon. Gentleman, through his Department, was in full touch and co-operation with the local authorities concerned in the drafting of this Order, in its preparation, and making the necessary administrative

arrangements, without the slightest hint that the Minister, having made the Order, might be prepared to go back on his signature. The hon. Member said that, as long ago as 30th October last, what he called "the Prime Minister's political office"—I am not quite sure of the distinction between that and the Prime Minister himself because the Prime Minister's activities at the moment seem to be wholly political—

Mr. John Page: Party political.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend says, party political. As long ago as 30th October last, the Prime Minister's political office was replying to the hon. Member's constituency party with at least a broad hint that the Government might be prepared to go back on the arrangements made with the full knowledge of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
When he speaks tonight, the Minister owes the House an explanation. Will he tell the House when he decided that, although he would make the Order, he would be disposed to go back on it? Will he tell the House whether, on 30th October last, he already had it in mind that he would recommend the House to reject the Order which some months later as Minister he was to make? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House that when he replies. I am assuming, because this is the extraordinary situation that the House is now in, that the Minister will go back on his signature. If he will not, no one will welcome it more than I. It is part of the criticism of him that he has allowed this matter to go on until tonight, a month after he signed the Order and a week before it comes into effect, before telling the House, whatever the merits of the matter, what he is proposing to recommend to the House.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money have been spent on these arrangements. Innumerable people have been consulted about the impact on them personally, 50,000 families have been informed of the arrangements to be made for payment of rent and the normal safeguards made for them. Quite a number of employees have had arrangements made in respect of them proceeding on the basis that in good faith the Minister would carry out


his statutory duty to make and support the Order.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that if the Minister, when considering the matter, came to the conclusion that what was proposed was neither in the interests of the tenants concerned nor of the rate-, payers of the boroughs, it would be his bounden duty to advise the House accordingly?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has known of this matter for two years. If he were disposed to take that attitude, it is a little late in the day now. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) for assisting me. If the right hon. Gentleman took that view—he is perfectly entitled to take it—why in heaven's name did he not months ago inform those concerned, the people at County Hall and in the boroughs, the residents in the houses, the employees of the Greater London Council and all concerned, so that time and money would not be wasted in preparing a scheme in the belief—apparently, the unreliable belief—that the right hon. Gentleman would do his statutory duty?
I hope that the hon. Member for Putney will agree that, whatever view the right hon. Gentleman took, it is indefensible to leave it till now when money has been spent, the arrangements made, and the whole scheme due to come into operation in a week's time.
The Minister knows—the letter from his private secretary to Mr. Plummer accepts it—that where the parties concerned, that is, the Greater London Council and the boroughs, are in agreement, under Section 23 of the London Government Act, 1963 he is under a statutory duty to make the Order. Indeed, his letter hints that that is why he has made it.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say—this is reminiscent of what his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a few months ago—that he proposes to comply with the technicalities of the statute and then act to defeat its intention. It is essential that Ministers above all, particularly Ministers who, as in this case, are making the law—for this Statutory Instrument is part of the law—

should be prepared to observe not only the letter but the spirit of the law. If Ministers will indulge in a trick to upset—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Humbug.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Indeed, it would be humbug. I accept the word. If Ministers are prepared to indulge in humbug, going through the forms of the statute and then, through party channels, seeking to negative its effect, the result must be serious for general respect for the law in this country.

Mr. James Dickens: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. There is more in this than even the fate of the 50,000 families involved. There is something even more important than that. There is involved here the question whether Ministers of the Crown in performance of their statutory duty are prepared to abide by the law which they make or are prepared to indulge in a squalid trick to avoid it.

10.28 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): In intervening at this stage, I hope that what I have to say may help the House in reaching a decision. Before I state the Government's attitude to the Prayer, I wish to say a few words about the London Government Act, 1963, under which the Order was made.
There are two provisions of special relevance, Section 23(3) and (4). Subsection (3) provides that, where the Minister is asked by both the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs concerned to make an order transferring G.L.C. houses to boroughs, he must make and lay such an Order. He has no option. That is what has happened in the present case. I had no choice. Neither could I amend it.
Subsection (4) provides that the G.L.C. must submit to the Minister before 1st April, 1970, a programme—I repeat "programme"—of proposed transfers. The right hon. Gentleman for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was Minister at the time, made the intention of this quite clear when he said:
I must emphasise that this does not mean that transfers will necessarily have taken place


or be about to take place by 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 19th February, 1963; c. 310.]
So it was to be expected that the G.L.C. would submit a programme of its intentions to the Minister, discuss it with him, and then proceed to the implementation of the programme by negotiating with the borough councils and applying for Orders.
But it did not do this. It submitted an application to me for an agreed Order in January of this year—asking for no discussion and giving me no option but to make an Order. It said, in effect, "Oh, by the way, you can take that as the first phase of our submitted programme". Now it has been said that all this was worked out by a working party on which I had a representative.
With characteristic hyperbole, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said that I had my officials on the working party. That really will not do. A firm decision was taken by the G.L.C., in December, 1967, to offer one-third of its housing stock to the boroughs as soon as the mechanics could be worked out. Only after that were the working parties set up, on one of which the Ministry had an observer, and the job of these working parties was simply to work out ways and means, not the scale and timing of the offer itself.
The policy decision, as I said, was taken in 1967, but the scheme changed constantly throughout 1969. As soon as the scheme was received, I reserved my position, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, but it has been said that I should have intervened before the scheme was submitted to me. However, Ministry circular 1/65 was sent to London authorities on 20th January, 1965, and dealt with the housing provisions of the 1963 Act. On transfers, except for the special problem of sons and daughters of L.C.C. tenants—my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) paraphrased it—the message was "The Minister does not expect the G.L.C. to submit a programme of transfers to him for some time after the appointed day. He will keep this matter under review and will return to it in due course". But when the Tories came to power in the G.L.C. they did not wait for me to return to it; nor did they raise

it with me. They simply took their own policy decision and went ahead with it.
I have dwelt on this at some length in case anyone should assume an air of grievance and injured innocence about what has happened. But I do not rest my argument on it. The main point is not that the G.L.C. has not consulted me, but that it has produced no reasons to Parliament or to anybody, supporting this momentous step. What is the reason for thinking that 150,000 is about the right size of housing pool for the G.L.C. to keep indefinitely, to carry out its "strategic" housing role? What is the reason for thinking that 46,000—a figure which started at 70,000—is about the right number to transfer at the first stage? What is the reason for thinking that now is the right time for the first stage? Nobody has been told by the G.L.C. the answer to any of these questions
I called it a momentous step. I maintain that the transfer of ownership of 46,000 houses is a momentous step, and should not be approved by Parliament in the absence of full supporting reasons showing that the extent, and timing, are right. These reasons we have not had, either from the G.L.C. or from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
Here let me make it clear that my reservations about the Order do not express a lack of confidence in the London Boroughs. Many of them have a first class housing record, and many—though, most regrettably, not all—there are Members representing some of the backsliding authorities here tonight—are continuing to do their utmost.
The best of them would probably be the first to agree that it is essential to consider carefully what is the right balance between the strategic rôle of the G.L.C. acting for London as a whole and the rôle of the boroughs, acting as the primary housing authorities for their areas, before large-scale transfers are made. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South referred to the South East Economic Planning Council. In its comments on the Greater London Development Plan it showed that it is anxious about this question of London housing. As my hon. Friend reminded us, it goes so far as to say that there should be only one local authority for the


whole of London and that that authority should be the G.L.C. I do not share that view, that the housing functions should go entirely to the first-tier authority, but the fact that this can be suggested by such a body shows that we are concerned with more than a matter of mere detail.
So far I have simply said that the proposal ought to be properly justified. I now come to a feature which seems to me very unfortunate. This is the division of single estates between two and sometimes three housing authorities—that is the G.L.C. and one, or even two, of the London boroughs. This is against all the principles of good housing management. There is the suggestion that the Becontree Estate should be, split between the G.L.C., Barking and Redbridge, that St. Helier should be divided between the G.L.C., Sutton and Merton, that Harold Hill should be divided between the G.L.C. and Havering, and that Great Watling Estate should be divided between the G.L.C. and Barnet. I cannot believe, without further good reasons given by the G.L.C., that this is sensible housing management policy.
Even the working party felt obliged to say:
This is not a happy arrangement".
But it said it
could not be avoided if each Borough was to get a pro rata share of G.L.C. dwellings".
That may be so, but it does not dispose of the problem. The disadvantages flowing from divergent management practices in single estates, especially in the longer term, can be imagined. What assessment has been made of them, and what advantages are there which might be held to outweigh them? I do not think this has been sufficiently considered, it indeed, it has been considered at all.
As regards the timing of the proposal, I have considerable doubt whether this is the moment, when London boroughs are, or ought to be, fully stretched on house-building, slum-clearance, and improvement work under the new Act, to saddle them with an additional burden. I have not had any assurance that the G.L.C., when relieved of this burden, will spring forward to a higher pitch of activity in the rest of its housing work—quite the reverse.
Why must transfers begin now rather than a year or two later? We have not been told. The Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London said at Paragraph 795 that
the actual timing of transfers would have to be settled in the light of the particular circumstances of individual estates".
That suggests a less crude arrangement than is now proposed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not been told by the G.L.C. why this should take place now. Did he through his officer, who was at these discussions, ask the G.L.C. to deploy its reasons, and if so, did it do so?

Mr. Greenwood: It seems a very odd thing that the right hon. Gentleman should seek in that way to excuse a public authority for not laying before the House the reasons why it seeks to adopt a particular course of conduct.

Hon Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help the debate at all.

Mr. R. W. Brown: My right hon. Friend may be satisfied that many of us demanded of the G.L.C. why it was doing it. It refused to answer. That is why my right hon. Friend was not told—because It had no answer to the question "Why?"

Mr. Greenwood: The decision had been taken by the G.L.C. before the working party was appointed.
I have also had evidence of objections or reservations from the staffs concerned. For example, I have had a letter from the Greater London Council Staff Association dated 19th February objecting to the absence from the Order of provisions for appeals by staff who are dissatisfied with the posts to which they are to be transferred. The Order does propose a tribunal to hear appeals on "comparability", but the association think that this requires clarification and strengthening. It is also concerned about staff promotion prospects. These points seem to me to be matters on which more complete understanding might be possible if more time were taken.
I have also had representations from the General and Municipal Workers Union and the National Union of Public


Employees expressing reservations about the proposals from the point of view of the position and careers of the staff. Their objections are something which the authority should seek to remove as far as possible by discussion and clarification.
On the other hand I have been told by the right hon. Gentleman of the preparations made both by the G.L.C. and the boroughs, and the waste of money and effort that will follow if the proposals are not rubber-stamped by the House—a curious attitude to the High Court of Parliament. I am very sorry about the trouble that has been taken, but I must say that the fault is primarily with those who went ahead so rashly. They could have discussed a programme with me before seeking to implement it. They could have produced a considered case in support of their proposals. But they did neither of these things. When the decision is clearly defined by Statute as being one for Parliament, and for Parliament alone, it is the height of imprudence to seek to pre-empt the decision of either House.
I do not, of course, take the attitude that any transfer at any time must be wrong. What is wrong on this occasion is the way in which this has been put forward without adequate investigation of the implications. I would urge the need for a careful, rational look into the problem, which will result in the local authorities involved, and Parliament, and the Minister having some better way of judging when and how fast and how far this process should go. I had hoped that the G.L.C. would put a programme to me for consideration, without at the same time putting a pistol to my head.
I should like to remove the pistol and to consider the programme. I therefore make this suggestion to the House, which I hope will be seen—as I intend it—to be a constructive one: I believe that it would be helpful if an experienced and independent person, acting as a consultant, were to inquire into and report on these proposals, and in particular the effect they would have on the respective rôles of the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs, and also on the requirements of good management. I am therefore asking Professor Cullingworth to undertake this task, and I am most grateful to him for agreeing to accept my invi-

tation. Amongst other things he was, as hon. Members will know, Chairman of a Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, which has recently produced a quite oustanding and sensitive report on some of the difficult problems of house management. He will come to this particular problem with an open mind and no prejudices. I suggest that he should analyse and comment on the problems involved rather than come to firm conclusions. In this way the local authorities, to which the report will of course be made available, need not feel that they are being unduly fettered. I hope too that such an inquiry and report will help Parliament in its further consideration of this important issue. In the meantime, I must say that the Government's view is that the proposed transfers should not go forward.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Minister's speech discloses a degree of neglect and lethargy on his part which will cost the ratepayers of London a great deal of money, cause a great deal of uncertainty amongst staff and do a great deal of damage. The Minister, knowing the policy of the Greater London Council as long ago as December, 1967, agreed to appoint one of his officials to the principal working party to decide the detail of the scheme of transfer. That official sat on that working party throughout the whole of 1968. No criticism was made of the findings of that working party. Thereafter, the Minister provided one of his legal advisers to assist the G.L.C. in drafting the Order. That adviser worked on it, without any criticism of the Order, throughout 1968. For the Minister then to come to the House, a few days before the transfer is to take place, and to announce publicly for the first time that he is against the policy is an appalling act of neglect on his part.
His excuse is that the G.L.C. did not give all the reasons. One would have thought that he was paying the salary of an official to sit on that working party to keep him advised. The Ministry has had the expense of preparing an Order and of paying the salary of an official and at the end of the day all the work of the London boroughs and of the G.L.C. has been completely and utterly wasted.
If the Minister's view was that this should have been handled by an independent inquiry, by Professor Culling-worth or anyone else, the time to have said so was two years ago when the G.L.C. announced its policy. The Minister has known for two years what the policy has been, yet two days before its implementation he announces his attitude. This is an act of lethargy the cost of which Londoners will have to meet.
The one supporting piece of evidence which the Minister clings to is that the Economic Planning Council suggests that the G.L.C. might be the only housing authority. But the Minister knows full well that the Milner Holland Report advocated that policy, the legislation upon which this policy is based was founded upon a Royal Commission Report and the Minister, in a White Paper prepared by his Department on the reform of local government, makes it clear that he considers that housing should be the responsibility of the second-tier authorities in the Metropolitan area. All the accumulated evidence of the Royal Commission, the Milner Holland Report and the Government's White Paper is that this was the principle which the Government supported.
The Minister for two years has expressed no criticism of the principle, either through his officials or publicly. He allowed all the work to go on. Only when some of the constituency Labour Parties in London decided that there was political capital to be made by frightening tenants on this issue did the Minister decide, for cheap party political reasons, to pray against his own Order tonight. Just as the Government voted against their Orders to gerrymander the electorate, they intend to vote against their own Order tonight, in an effort to overcome their complete failure for two years to stop all this work taking place. The three working parties on which the Minister has been represented has undertaken an immense amount of detailed work. Points raised by staff associations have been discussed through the proper machinery, there is provision for appeals and the career prospects and salary position have been looked into. Therefore, the Minister tonight by saying that he sees no reason in principle why there

should not be transfers to the boroughs in the years ahead is now creating an immense area of uncertainty for all staff concerned. Already staff have been transferred to the London boroughs and rent rolls have been prepared—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. One hon. Member can state the case for his side. He does not need help.

Mr. Walker: The G.L.C. was under the misguided impression that the Minister having laid the Order intended to support it. But for cheap party political reasons the Government are wasting ratepayers' money, disturbing the position of tenants and the staff concerned, so that any confidence which anybody had in the Government has been found to be completely unjustified.
The staff position has been carefully examined, tenants have been informed, some 50,000 circulars having been sent out to them, meetings have been held with tenants' associations and preparations for the transfer have been going on for two years. But not once has any spokesman from the Ministry contacted the G.L.C. or the London boroughs to say that the Ministry might have to reconsider the matter, or indeed might have to vote against it. In October the hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), who prayed against this Order, wrote to the Prime Minister's office, to constituency Labour Party offices, and contacted the Minister's office. Yet there has not been one utterance of policy from the Ministry.
They knew all the work was going on, that people were being informed and that expenditure was being incurred and that staff would have to be transferred. Yet only tonight the Minister tells the country what he intends to do. It is a shabby, disgraceful performance, a performance of which the electors of London will show their disapproval in a very short time.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has not addressed himself to the real problem. He has attempted to be polemical about the matter, but he has not answered the three questions which I put to the Greater


London Council originally. I must admit to the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help HANSARD if the hon. Gentleman speaks up.

Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First, I asked the Greater London Council the reasons for the transfers. Secondly, I asked them to tell me what were the advantages of such transfers. Finally, I asked what would be the cost of such transfers. Those three questions have gone unanswered right the way through.
Eventually Councillor Plummer had to call his colleagues together at some sort of soirée in September last to try to sort out all the questions so that they might get on with the job. That was the situation and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to infer that apparently all things in the garden were lovely during the two years during which the investigation was taking place.
There are pages and pages of meetings of the London Boroughs Association at which these questions were continually being asked and being hedged. Then when the programmes were coming forward, further questions were being asked about certain estates. But one could never discover how much the maintenance of housing was costing. We were told that the costs could not be broken down, and that there were no such figures. Finally, after weeks of pressuring, we got a false figure, and it was a figure which I had known from the beginning to be false.
The history of this began with the decision to get rid of the G.L.C.'s housing to the boroughs. It was a doctrinaire party political issue, and the G.L.C. made no bones about it from the beginning. Therefore, it is right that we should ask ourselves why we should accept such transfers at a time when we see in the borough of Hackney 13,000 families on the waiting list and in the borough of Islington about 10,000, and when I am persistently asking the G.L.C. to help solve some of the housing problems—because Islington and Hackney cannot solve them. I have told my right hon. Friend repeatedly that someone should be able to solve them, but certainly Islington and Hackney cannot. The

G.L.C. is the only authority which is likely to be able to help, since it has a wider area in which it can offer accommodation. To reduce the 270,000 homes would be ridiculous when there is such a desperate need.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about this "great participation", but what has happened in the London borough of Sutton? On the St. Helier estate there, 1,701 properties are to be handed over. In the area which takes in those 1,701 houses, there are 3,400 people on the register. There is a petition signed by 2,500 people asking the Minister not to allow it and asking this House to turn it down. The hon. Member for Worcester has not mentioned that. Why not? Unfortunately, I do not represent Sutton, so I cannot present the petition, but the petition exists.
What does Sutton want to do with the 1,701 properties? It has made it clear. If this Order is approved, the 1,701 will be decanted and the area sold to private developers. That is a situation in which hon. Members must ask themselves what is the purpose of transferring homes to the boroughs if they are to be got rid of to private developers, housing associations, or to anyone but themselves? Consequently, I ask the House to turn down the Order. It has been a disgraceful business from beginning to end.
Why should a borough take over property, only to find that the G.L.C. will have 65 per cent. of the voids which will arise? Those who occupy them will have to pay not the borough's rents but those which the G.L.C. dictates. If they do not pay, the boroughs will have to make up the difference. They will have to pay the amount which the G.L.C. determines for maintenance. We know how desperately low that has been. The G.L.C. will not do the maintenance. If the borough does additional maintenance, it must pay the difference between its cost and the rate set by the G.L.C. In addition, all the subsidies go directly to the G.L.C.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the poor staff. He should read the report of the working party. It cannot make up its mind whether all the staff, half the staff, or 800 of the staff should go over. At the end of the day the best optimisation they can make is that the extra G.L.C. wages bill to start the exercise


will be £250,000, the whole thing is an absurdity from beginning to end.
The G.L.C. has done a bad job of negotiation between the Government and itself and between itself and the boroughs. It might be thought that this was a vast issue of 33 boroughs. But eight of the boroughs which have voted in favour of the scheme are not involved and three others are so small they are insignificant. That is 11 voting in favour of something which does not affect them. But Hackney and Islington, which are important, say, "No, thank you". Hackney says that it is impossible and Islington says that if it is forced to have the transfer it will hand them over to housing associations because it cannot cope. Therefore, we must ask the question: is this the right time to have a change of this magnitude? I do not think that it is.
If such a transfer was made only in selected areas, I ask what happens to the areas which have said no, because they cannot cope? It means that the staff will be taken from the G.L.C. maintenance area to service those that have been handed over. This is what the arrangement with the staff was about. Inevitably, it means that work needed to be done on housing estates which are retained in those areas will not be done to the required standard.
It has been stated that there should be an opportunity for up to 70,000 transfers to be made. The people in my constituency have no nice cottages or houses. They are warehoused in some G.L.C. properties with baths in the kitchens. I have raised this point before. There are no homes in my area for them; they must go out into somebody else's area. I can understand those areas which will get those nice cottage estates saying, "Thank you. We can cope with that in our own area." But what will happen if somebody in my borough living in a slum clearance area desires to move to those more desirable areas? The borough concerned will say, "We have enough problems with our one, two and three-bedroom properties. We would if we could, but we cannot."
I hope that the House will reject the Order and argue that something better should take its place.
I commend my right hon. Friend on setting up a consultant to examine the

matter properly in the interests of Londoners. That is the criterion that we should have.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that still a goodly number wish to speak. Mr. Lubbock.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I agree with the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) that the criterion ought to be: what is to the benefit of Londoners as a whole? That is the way that I intend to look at the Order.
The hon. Gentleman said that the whole matter was an absurdity from beginning to end, by which I suppose he means the original scheme outlined by the G.L.C. in 1967. I must say that I wondered why the Minister did not give any intimation to the Greater London Council of the way that his mind was working. I think that he had some good arguments tonight why the Order should not go through. If he had mentioned these matters to the G.L.C. earlier, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, a lot of needless expenditure could have been avoided and perhaps this debate would not have taken place. The Minister could have said to the G.L.C., "You should properly justify your proposals before we can recommend them in the form of an Order to the House; you should not split up estates between several authorities"—I agree with him entirely on that—"and you should consider which of the boroughs have enough to do already without being faced with the additional burden of taking over this extra responsibility." Even after hearing the Minister's speech it was still a mystery to me why, having had this official on one of the working parties—and, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said, it was the most important of the three working parties—the Minister did not use this as a channel through which to convey his views to the G.L.C. at an earlier moment.
But that is not what we are being asked to decide. We have to consider the proposal on its merits and whether it is for the benefit of Londoners to have this transfer made. I am not convinced that it is, much as I am attracted by


the idea that as much as possible of the housing in the boroughs should be administered locally. Generally speaking, the tenants get a better service—though that is not saying much, because the housing departments of the boroughs do not give them a very good service either—but if they have to choose between having somebody locally at whom they can get, and having to go to County Hall to see the Director of Housing, who is far too busy to see them anyway, the London boroughs are the lesser of two evils. From the point of view of the convenience of the tenants in being able to get at the person responsible for the service, it is better to have housing administered locally, but there are these other factors which the Minister outlined. For example, should estates be split between as many as three different authorities, or would the difficulty which that would create be so great that it would negate the benefits of local administration?
I think that it is a good idea to get Professor Cullingworth to look into these matters, and I hope that he will get the co-operation of the G.L.C. and the London boroughs in the investigations that he is undertaking. It is important that Professor Cullingworth should enjoy the confidence of the G.L.C. and the boroughs in conducting this investigation if it is to have the greatest possible value.
I have consulted certain people in my constituency about the G.L.C. estates there, and about the views of the staff. They tell me that it is generally believed among the staff, in spite of what the hon. Member for Worcester said, that the terms and conditions will be worsened, and that promotion opportunities will be fewer if they go over to the service of the boroughs. I am not saying that this is true. I am merely saying that the staff association has not been satisfied with the arrangements proposed by the G.L.C. and the boroughs.
Furthermore, and more important, tenants have expressed the gravest anxieties about what will happen in terms of an increase in rents and the service which they will get if they are transferred from the G.L.C. to the boroughs. Once again I am not saying that these doubts are justified, but there is a great deal more convincing to do before the tenants will accept the scheme.
Although, as I understand it, there have been these various meetings with tenants, they have not been in the nature of consultations. It has been a question of take it or leave it, and far more work needs to be done by the G.L.C. and the boroughs concerned to make sure that tenants are fully aware of what is intended by this scheme.
Having studied this matter most carefully, and having listened to the Minister, I have concluded that this Order must not be allowed to go through, but that we should allow a further breathing space to enable the matter to be considered more thoroughly. I am sure that in a few months' time, with the advice of Professor Cullingworth, the House will be able to make a much better and wiser decision.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: This is a matter on which opinions are bound to differ according to the borough that one is considering. The views of my Borough of Barking are different from those which have been expressed on this side of the House so far. The fact is that two-thirds of the houses in my constituency of Dagenham belong to the G.L.C., and more than half the houses in the Borough of Barking belong to the G.L.C. The Becontree Estate which, when it was built, was the largest housing estate in Europe, and is still the largest of the G.L.C. estates, has particular problems which required to be dealt with in particular ways. The houses in this area were built by the London County Council outside its own boundaries in the late 1920s and early 1930s. All the possible mistakes were made that could be made in town planning at that time. No natural centres were created, no jobs were provided for the people living there. Fords and other factories only came along because the labour was there. They had to be fitted in.
We have always had great problems with Becontree and they need specially dealing with at present. Up to 1947 the position was that tenants' sons and daughters on the estate were frequently found vacancies when they occurred. When the estate was built, it was for young families with large numbers of children. There were therefore not many vacancies in the early days, but they


gradually began to arise as people died or moved elsewhere and the vacancies tended to be offered to sons and daughters of existing tenants. The policy then changed and sons and daughters were refused places on the estate. The result was that vacancies which arose were given to people from areas inside the L.C.C., particularly for inner London. We do not object to taking our share for inner London, but the sons and daughters of tenants all had to move elsewhere to find homes and the result was that there was a lack of community life in the area and that clubs and churches could have no continuing life, because young people moved away when they got married and had children of their own. This created great social problems in this large estate.
As early as 1947, Dagenham and Barking Labour Parties put forward proposals to take the estate over into the hands of the local councils, because only in that way could vacancies be filled mainly by people from the area. We have pressed for this takeover since that time. I pressed for it when the G.L.C. took over from the L.C.C. in 1964. The result of this trouble was that pressure was put on the L.C.C. and because of this, arrangements were finally made to allot a certain number of vacancies to be filled by the sons and daughters of tenants. The number was to begin with quite small and we had to pay the L.C.C. for permission for sons and daughters to go on the list. Gradually, under pressure, the numbers increased until last year, out of 495 vacancies, 238 went to local people, just under half.
Some vacancies must go to people from central London if we are to play our fair part in dealing with the housing problems of central London, but I take the view that we in the locality should have the biggest say in what should happen to the houses. Under the proposed scheme 8,361 houses will be handed over to the Barking Council. A much larger proportion should be taken over by the local council. The area taken over is in a reasonable unit: the whole of the area south of the railway and a considerable proportion north of it. That fits in well with the local council estates.
Repair and maintenance work carried out has deteriorated enormously since the Tories took over the G.L.C. There have been complaints that adequate repair work has not been done and modernisation is required in the way of bathrooms and kitchens and all that kind of thing. It will never be done by the G.L.C.: it will only be done by the borough. The present Greater London Council is selling off houses, but it is ridiculous to sell off one house in the middle of an estate. We want to stop this. Estates should be run as units. I am glad that the Minister is setting up this inquiry, but I hope that it will find solutions to the particular problems of particular parts of London. My area has particular problems and I hope that they will be met.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said, but would he not join with me in asking the Minister that this independent inquiry should also extend to the estates which are now outside the boundaries of London?

Mr. Parker: I agree. A case in point is Slough, where there is a big G.L. estate outside the boundaries of Greater London.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: We have heard some curious reasons for the oppoisition to the Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson) opposes it because, he says, the proposed transfer is irrelevant, because it does not add a single housing unit to housing in Lewisham. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown), on the other hand, opposes it because it would reduce the housing of the G.L.C. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways—saying that it reduces in one direction, but does not add in the other. There is some illogicality in their arguments.
Of course, transfer neither increases nor reduces the number of houses in existence. All it means is that one authority has more than it had before and that another has fewer. It is such a simple proposition that one wonders why hon. Members opposite get themselves into such a tangle trying to find arguments for resisting an Order which they know in their hearts there is no legitimate reason at all for resisting.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, South, is very much concerned, of course, with the housing pool in his borough, and says that this proposal adds nothing to Lewisham. In fact, the proposal in the Order would transfer from the G.L.C. to Lewisham 6,560 dwellings, of which the residents of Lewisham, the people on the housing list, would have the priority of 35 per cent. Perhaps the people on the waiting list in Lewisham will be rather disturbed to learn that their Member of Parliament is opposing in the House a Measure which would increase their pool of available housing by over 2,000 units. The same can be said of all hon. Members opposite representing London constituencies who are taking the same attitude.

Mr. R. W. Brown: Mr. R. W. Brown rose—

Mr. Rossi: No, there is very little time—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Merely shouting "Give way" does not make an hon. Member give way.

Mr. Rossi: The hon. Member has already made his speech, to which I listened patiently, without interrupting, and there are very few moments left. The hon. Gentleman asked earlier—and said that he had asked the G.L.C.—what was the reason for the transfer. The reason is simple and is contained in an Act passed in 1963—that steps to be taken to transfer houses from the G.L.C. to the London boroughs. Parliament required this to be done simply because a Royal Commission had sat for many months considering the whole structure of local government in the Greater London area.
It had come to the conclusion that a two-tier structure was required in such a manner that the unitary authorities—to borrow a phrase from Maud—or the London boroughs should be the authorities responsible for the personal services, so that they should be the authorities responsible for housing. It was therefore proposed that, over a transitional period from 1963, there should be laid out a programme for the eventual transfer of the housing of the G.L.C.—the former L.C.C. housing pool—to the London boroughs to fit in with the new concept that was accepted by Parliament.
The Minister is now going back on that, and we know why. It is because the mandarins of the old L.C.C., the Labour Party caucuses that used to control London, hated the idea that the empire which they created was being dismembered. We saw this with the children's services. That was the first battle. There was a tremendous fight over the children's services being transferred from—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not widen the debate.

Mr. Rossi: Following logically from that mentality, we now have resistance by the London Labour Party to the transfer of housing from its creature to the authorities, which a Royal Commission decided were appropriate to deal with these matters of housing. One wonders how the Government will deal with the problems raised by Maud. Will they play ducks and drakes with legislation in exactly the same way? Nobody can have any confidence in the way in which the present Government operate.
If I have any criticism to make of the G.L.C., it is that at this late stage it should not be seeking to transfer the whole of its housing pool but merely part of it to the local authorities. Its original proposal was for the transfer of 70,000 houses, reduced to about 46,000 because some local authorities would not fall in with the scheme. But the G.L.C. decided to retain 150,000, and the Minister knows that it gave good reasons for doing that. Because of its commitments to the road programme, the development of sites for schools, open spaces and so on, it needed to retain, for the time being, this pool of 150,000 houses. If there is any criticism, it is that it is seeking to transfer merely part of its housing stock against the findings of the Royal Commission.
The Minister complains that he was not consulted. One feels that there is more than an element of amour propre in this; that the local authorities should dare to reach agreement among themselves as to how to discharge their obligations under the Act and that they should dare to try to work out a sensible working arrangement—compromise their various demands, one against the other—and then say to the Minister, "This is what we, the elected representatives, feel is best for London". The Minister, sitting in his


ivory tower in Whitehall, says, "No. The elected representatives of London do not know what is best for London. I and the Labour Party know what is best, and what we say should be done, you will do".
This is why we have this present situation. The Minister asks for reasons: these can be given to him quite easily. When the Greater London Council had to consider how it should allocate these 70,000 houses that it decided it should transfer, three possibilities were open to the G.L.C. It could either allocate to the local boroughs in accordance with their housing needs. That, for example, would have resulted in Tower Hamlets having a far greater percentage than Barking. That was one way of doing it—dividing according to housing needs. The second alternative was to allocate in accordance with the value to the G.L.C. itself of the houses it was holding. The third was to allocate to each borough council pro rata according to the G.L.C. housing stock in that borough.
After discussions between the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under pressure."] Under what pressure? This was a freely negotiated agreement in discharge of a statutory duty imposed by Parliament. If there was any pressure it was that of the statutory duty, and no other.
The Greater London Council tried to do the best it could to carry out this duty, and at all times, the Minister's observer and adviser was present and able to see what was going on and indicate if the Minister had anything to say about the method of approach. But he who keeps silence, consents—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Minister, in allowing these discussions to continue in this way, with his representative present, was taken to consent to what was going on.
The Minister had every opportunity to say that he did not like this method; that he did not want a pro rata alloca-

tion. He could have said that it should be done according to the housing needs. Did his observer or adviser say that? He knew what was going on, and was reporting back to the Minister, who knew what was going on. But he knew that this was a perfectly fair way, and that the Greater London Council and the boroughs between them had agreed that it was fair.

Why, therefore, should the Minister now intervene? Because one feels that the Minister agreed all along with what was going on and approved of it, but has now received his orders from somewhere else.

Mr. Greenwood: The truth is that the G.L.C. made this policy decision in 1967. It was only in the middle of January, 1970, that we knew what the scheme was going to amount to. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] What the hon. Member is saying is that we should condemn it before we knew what it said.

Mr. Rossi: The Minister knew the statutory obligation. He knew of the decision to retain 150,000 houses and to give over 70,000 for the reasons I have given, and he knew that two years ago. All that remained was ways and means, administrative procedure. That is all we are talking about, not policy. They discussed administrative procedure for two years with the knowledge of the Minister, who raised not one word of protest, an utterly discreditable and disgraceful action on the part of a Minister of the Crown. If he had the courage of his convictions he would hand in his resignation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] There can be absolutely no merit in the attitude of the Minister. One is surprised to find that a right hon. Gentleman for whom one had some sympathy should behave in this way.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (Procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 230.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)


Albu, Austen
Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice


Alldritt, Walter
Ashley, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Allen, Scholefield
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Barnes, Michael




Barnett, Joel
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maxwell, Robert


Baxter, William
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mayhew, Christopher


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bence, Cyril
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mendelson, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Millan, Bruce


Binns, John
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Blackburn, F.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Haseldine, Norman
Molloy William


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hattersley, Roy
Moonman, Eric


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boston, Terence
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Hobden, Dennis
Moyle, Roland


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brooks, Edwin
Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Albert


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Horner, John
Neal, Harold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens Stan


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Norwood Christopher


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Herber[...] (Hackney, C.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael


Caliaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Oswald, Thomas


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owne, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Concannon, J.D
Janner, Sir Barnett
Padley, Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Park, Trevor


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)



Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, Clifford
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dewar, Donald
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Dickens, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Rees, Merlyn


Dobson, Ray
Ledger, Ron
Richard, Ivor


Doig, Peter
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunn, James A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Edelman, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roebuck, Roy


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Ellis, John
Loughlin, Charles
Rose, Paul


English, Michael
Luard, Evan
Rowlands, E.


Ennals, David
Lubbock, Eric
Ryan John


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McCann, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Faulds, Andrew
MacColl, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, E.
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Finch, Alan (Wigan)
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir Eric(Islington,E.)
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Foley, Maurice
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. John


Forrester, John
Macmillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fowler, Gerry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thornton, Ernest


Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, nt. Hn. Jeremy


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu.J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Tinn, James


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Tomney, Frank


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gregory, Arnold
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)







Walden, Brian (All Saints)
White, Mrs, Eirene
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Wallace, George
Wilkins, W. A.
Winnick, David


Watkins, David (Consett)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. William Hamling and


Whitaker, Ben
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. Ernest Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Astor, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Miscampbell, Norman


Awdry, Daniel
GOdber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Raymond
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Batsford, Brian
Grant, Anthony
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bell, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Murton, Oscar


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro Sir Gerald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)



Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hay, John



Boyd-Carpsnter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boyle, Rt Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Braine, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Peel, Jonn


Brewis, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pounder, Rafton


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt Hn. Sir Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Corfield, F. V.
King, Tom
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sandys, Rt Hn. D.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dalkeith, Earl of
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dance, James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dean, Paul
Lloud, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Longden, Gilbert
Sinclair, Sir George


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur Sir Stephen
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Sir John

Stodart, Anthony


Emery, Peter
McMaster, Stanley
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fisher, Nigel
Maddan, Martin
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tilney, John


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.







van Straubenzee, W. R.
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)
woodnutt, Mark


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ward, Dame Irene
Worsley, Marcus


Vickers, Dame Joan
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wright, Esmond


Waddington, David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Wall, Patrick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Jasper More.


Walters, Dennis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) (MEASURES)

Queen's Consent having been signified—

11.42 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move,
That the Collegiate Churches (Capital Endowments) Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Ecclesiastical Commission Act, 1869, enabled land to be transferred by Order in Council with the consent of the Visitor to a cathedral or to a Collegiate Church in lieu of any annual sum which was payable by law by the Commissioners to them. The Cathedrals Measure of 1963 repealed these provisions of the 1869 Act but enacted similar provisions with regard to cathedrals, omitting Collegiate Churches. This Measure enacts them for the two Collegiate Churches of Westminster Abbey and St. George's, Windsor. It is to be done by Order in Council under this Measure, on simple agreement between the parties, with the consent of the Visitor and Her Majesty the Queen in the case of Westminster Abbey and the Lord Chancellor in the case of St. George's, Windsor.
The Church Assembly passed the Measure through all its stages without any division, and the Ecclesiastical Commission of Parliament recommended the House that the submission of the Measure to Her Majesty was expedient.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I gather that Westminster Abbey and St. George's Chapel, Windsor, were left out of the previous Measure by a sad omission. Are those responsible for this Measure quite certain that they have now got everything in that should be in? The word "land" appears in the Measure. Why "land"? Surely capital assets can be transferred in some other form? Is it limited to land?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is limited to land. It is considered desirable that that should be the case. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first question, there was just a plain omission when the Measure came forward and now those in authority feel pretty certain that all is included that should be included.

Mr. John Wells: I presume that "land" includes farmland, and therefore farm buildings, farm houses and all the appurtenances.

Mr. Mallalieu: It includes all land. More particularly the reference here would be to sites.

Question put and agreed to.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY) (MEASURES)

Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent having been signified—

11.47 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move,
That the Sharing of Church Buildings Measure, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Sharing of Church Buildings Act, 1969, permits a number of Churches, amongst which is the Church of England, to make sharing agreements for a building or buildings owned by one Church to be used by another or jointly to be used. There transpired certain difficulties in the course of joint ownership where consecrated buildings and parsonage buildings were concerned. This Measure is intended to deal with that situation. It was passed through all its stages by the Church Assembly without any division and the Ecclesiastical Commission of Parliament recommended to this House that the Measure should be sent to Her Majesty for her assent.

Question put and agreed to.

SCHOOL TEACHER (MRS. GREEN)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to raise the case of Mrs. Green, a schoolteacher in my constituency in a very charming small country village near the Cotswolds called Ascott-under-Wychwood. She is not unique in this case because there are other teachers in the country in the same boat. One or two of my hon. Friends present tonight would like to say a word about that, so I shall be very brief.
Mrs. Green started teaching in 1933 and continued until 1939. During the war she had to leave teaching because she had to look after her own children, her husband having gone to war service. She returned to it in 1947, and is still teaching at the primary school at Ascott-under-Wychwood, so she has been teaching 29 years by my calculations. She is 54.
Mrs. Green is an extremely good teacher. She is very well loved by all the children who have been through her school and who are still there, and she is highly respected by the parents in the village. She has acquired a wisdom in handling children which only comes from long experience and understanding of their problems. But, alas, she is not a qualified teacher, and Circular 15/68 of August, 1968, says that she must be sacked on 31st August this year. All the people in the village, the school governors, the local education authority, which is the Oxfordshire County Council, want her to stay on. The only person who says that she may not stay on is the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
On the electoral roll there are in this village 285 people. I have here a petition, which the Minister has seen, signed by 212 people in that village. In addition, I have had many letters, and I can sum it up by saying that practically the whole village wants her to stay on. In reply to a Question on 5th March, when I asked the Minister whether he would review this situation, I received the flat answer

"No", and the surprising comment, that this teacher would have the opportunity of taking a course for mature students. I remind the House that she is 54 and it does not make sense to ask a woman of 54 to go on a course.
I want her to stay on and continue to teach, and several of my hon. Friends have exactly the same problem in their own constituencies. Page 1 of the circular to which I referred describes how the decision, that unqualified teachers should go, was taken. A working party, representative of local authorities and teachers' associations examined this matter and reported to the Secretary of State, who accepted their report. It was the employers—the local authorities—and the employees—the teachers—who together arranged this; but the parents—the customers—who are concerned most of all with the children, were not represented. This decision was taken in the interests of the teachers and the teaching profession rather than in the interests of the children.
I agree that in the long run children will benefit by a wholly qualified profession, but this has been a mistake by the working party and the Minister; perhaps they did not see the implications of what they were doing. There are certain precedents for what I want. Dentists, veterinary surgeons, architects, National Health Service medical auxiliaries and professions supplementary to medicine, such as chiropody, and so on, had, I believe, exactly the same problem when they wanted to move to a fully qualified profession. In all those professions the people who have been practising for a certain period were allowed to continue to be employed. I do not see why that should not be so with teachers. If the local education authority wants unqualified teachers to stay on, if the teachers have served an adequate length of time and have the ability, they should be given qualified status. A possible way around this might be for local universities to give them an honorary degree.
The county council wrote to the Minister on 3rd July, 1969, asking that Mrs. Green be granted qualified teacher status in accordance with paragraph 12 (b) of the circular. The reply was:
Mrs. Green does not hold a school certificate or the equivalent qualification. She cannot be considered for qualified teacher status under paragraph 12 of this circular.


Nowhere does the circular mention that she must have school certificate or the equivalent to be recognised as a qualified teacher after a lengthy period of service. We could close the shop to unqualified teachers who are new entrants to the profession, so that in the end all teachers are qualified, but to throw all the wisdom and experience of these teachers on the scrap heap on a given day is the height of folly and is educationally unsound.

Mr. Keith Speed: Is my hon. Friend aware there is a much wider problem than the particular lady concerned? In my own constituency it concerns Mr. Luby and others, and this problem extends throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that intervention. I am familiar with the case of Mr. Luby as he has discussed it with me and, as my hon. Friend says, the matter involves many people throughout the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady who is to reply has a fine reputation for caring for children. The whole House recognises the great work she has done in this sphere both inside and outside the House. I ask her to extend her sympathy and knowledge to other spheres and to think about the children such as those in Ascott-under-Wychwood in Oxfordshire and elsewhere who want their Mrs. Greens to stay on as teachers in their schools. The hon. Lady is sensible enough to recognise the point and I hope she will persuade the Minister to take appropriate action, because it is the children who matter much more than the teachers. I believe the Minister has the power to take action on this matter under the circular but, if he has not, he should in the name of common sense take action to put right this unhappy situation.

11.57 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I should like to mention the case of a constituent who is a teacher of handicapped children, and who has 22 years' experience in this vital work. She is now doing a diploma course at a training centre, but she has been informed by the Ministry that she must have at least five years' post diploma experience before she can achieve qualified teacher status. Surely a person with

such experience as my constituent in achieving qualified status should have taken into account her pre-diploma experience rather than having to serve a further additional period of post-diploma experience.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for raising this matter this evening. The case of my constituent Miss Shaw is similar to the case of Mrs. Green. Miss Shaw, who lives in my constituency in Loxwood, has taught for no fewer than 23 years. She has now been told that she cannot teach after 31st August because she is not qualified to do so. It seems a ludicrous and heartless decision.
Is the Minister suggesting that all her pupils have suffered untold damage as a result of her unqualified instruction? Are we now to assume that there are hundreds of people who feel that their development has been stunted because of Miss Shaw's lack of professional qualifications? Is she now supposed to be such a danger to her pupils that within five months she must be stopped from doing the job that she has done so ably for 23 years? What is the urgency? Have we so many teachers in West Sussex that we can follow this kind of pendantic nonsense?
What is to become of Miss Shaw? What arrangements have been made to compensate her for the loss of her life's work? This whole episode is a shabby and mean decision entirely typical of this Government. My constituents will not forget it.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: I have a similar case in my constituency, although the person in question has not been teaching for as long as the people who have already been mentioned. I have not asked the constituent to give me permission to mention her name, though I should like to mention it.
She took up an appointment at a primary school in order to help out with some teaching difficulties some time ago. She says
I enjoyed my job very much, but was expected to carry on in a temporary capacity with a view to becoming permanent by at least the next academic year. I must state that I have only a university degree with no further teaching experience. However, they were glad


to accept me when they needed someone, and during my last two terms everyone has been at pains to tell me how well I am getting on.
She has now been told that she will be able to give up her job at Easter time but that she can become a fully qualified teacher if she does one year and a term's further teaching. But, she says, how can she possibly do this if she cannot get employment of this kind?
As a result of this debate, I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts. I hope, too, that the local education authorities will have second thoughts on these matters and be able to put forward some constructive suggestions. My impression is that there is a considerable shortage of teachers in secondary schools, and we can little afford to do without the experience of such people as my constituent on our school pay rolls.

12 midnight.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), for two reasons. The first is that I represented his constituent, Mrs. Green, for 15 years, and I have great pleasure in endorsing all that he has said about her and Ascott.
The second is to raise the case of Mrs. Biss, a constituent of mine, who taught French for 11 years in France and has a brevet from there. She taught French in Cheltenham for five years, to the contentment of the young, parents and colleagues, and I have forwarded to the Secretary of State a petition signed by hundreds of young and not so young people that she should be allowed to continue teaching spoken French In a primary school. It is a tribute to her.
It seems ridiculous that, after five years of successful teaching, she should be told that she is not qualified. Recently, I put a Question to the Minister, and he said in a Written Answer that there would be exceptions. He went on:
One of these is that, where a school needs a particular specialist skill and no qualified teacher is available, an unqualified person may be employed in the capacity of instructor to fill the gap. This provision should cover most of the difficult cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 140.]
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that cases such as my colleagues and I have raised will be covered, and

that our constituents and the teachers will be able to work together for a long time in the future.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I wish to support my hon. Friends and cite the case of Mrs. Neal, a constituent of mine, which is on all fours with the others about which we have been hearing. It is slightly ironical that the news of her having to give up teaching reached me at the same time as a letter from the National Union of Teachers claiming that there will be a shortage of 35,000 teachers coming out of our training colleges.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: No one listening to this short debate can fail to be impressed by the very human problems which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and others of my hon. Friends who have supported him.
I think that we all agree that, in the teaching profession, it is most desirable to move towards fully qualified status. That is not in dispute. But we are discussing those who have given devoted service for many years and who are in teaching at present.
We understand the limitations of a short debate of this kind, but I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to say that, in the light of this short but human debate, she will undertake to look at these cases and the principle involved. I hope especially that she will look at the examples of other great professions where it has been found possible to have different arrangements for those who are in the profession at the time that professional status is imposed.
All that my hon. Friends ask for is a litle elasticity and common sense which will bring a spirit of goodwill into cases which may be small in number but which are causing real hardship and heartfelt feeling in many people.

12.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): In many ways, I find this debate a sad one. However, before dealing with the real substance of the matter,


perhaps I might say to the hon. Gentleman who referred to this decision as a
… mean and spiteful act typical of this Government",
that his words were not typical of the attitude with which his hon. Friends have approached the debate.
The issue surely is that the Government are raising the standard of education by insisting upon qualified teachers being employed in their schools. Because of this, I accept that a few people who have given valuable service to the community are likely to suffer. This is not mean or spiteful. This is a human difficulty which exists because we are trying to raise our standard to give the best possible education to our children. There is nothing mean or spiteful about it. It may be difficult and there are not the loopholes perhaps that we might like to see.
The point raised about mentally-handicapped children is a different matter. This is concerned with the transfer of responsibility of the teachers of mentally-handicapped children from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Department of Education and Science.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: But surely the hon. Lady agrees that this, like the other cases, is a circumstance in which an ounce of experience is worth more than a pound of formal qualification.

Miss Lestor: I do not know that I would go along with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's measurements. There is a different situation here. This is not the same case, but I take his point.
On the general case, put so well by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), I accept completely what he said about the valuable work that Mrs. Green has done with her small number of infants over the years in the village primary school. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I realise that she is valued in the local community and that many people wish her to continue as a teacher. I also accept that this is true of many other people who are likely to fall by the wayside under the new arrangements. There is no question of saying that they have not given valuable service or that they have been necesarily less capable because they were not qualified. But the employment of people like Mrs. Green after

31st August this year involves important issues for school staffing policy in view of what has now taken place.
The conditions under which teachers may be employed in the maintained system are laid down in the Schools Regulations. Under those regulations as they existed before 1968 teachers had to be qualified. That is to say, with certain specified exceptions, they had to have taken a normal teacher training course or possess some specially approved qualification. We are considering the interests of the children in the new regulations. I should think that the local education authorities and the teachers are the best qualified in this instance to make the judgment, not necessarily the parents. It would have been difficult to have taken parents in as partners in this situation.
One of these exceptions was the category of "occasional teacher". Such teachers, though unqualified, could be employed in emergency on a stop-gap basis. It is, however, a fact that, because of teacher shortage, and often in isolated places, so-called occasional teachers were sometimes used by local education authorities as regular and even long-serving teachers though they never had security of tenure nor any kind of assurance of continued employment. There is no doubt, however, that this practice involved bending the rules at that time, because of certain local difficulties. Mrs. Green was such a person, employed de facto on a regular basis as an unqualified occasional teacher.
It was partly because a number of unqualified persons were being allowed to teach who did not fulfil the conditions laid down that, in 1967 and the early part of 1968, the N.U.T. introduced its sanctions campaign. Following that campaign, the Working Party on Unqualified Teachers was set up to examine the arrangements for the employment of unqualified teachers in maintained schools. Its report, which was ratified by all the constituent associations, both of employers and of teachers, and welcomed by my right hon. Friend, recommended a number of important changes which would make it possible to progress towards the generally accepted objective of a wholly qualified teaching force in the schools, and I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite would want to dissociate himself from that objective.


These recommendations were given effect by the Schools (Amendment) Regulations, 1968, which came into operation on 1st September.
The Regulations abolished the category of occasional teacher. No new first appointments were to be made after 1st September, and none was to be employed at all after 31st August, 1970. There was therefore a two-year breathing space—they were not sacked just like that as one hon. Gentleman suggested—and that two-year breathing space is now coming to an end. From 31st August next unqualified persons can be employed only as student teachers, or as instructors. Student teachers replace the old temporary teachers. As the name implies, they are people who have the necessary entry qualifications for, and are waiting to enter upon, a teacher training course.
The category of "instructor" was put in to allow persons who were not qualified at the time to be employed, in the absence of a qualified teacher, to give instruction in any art or skill, or in any subject or group of subjects, like shorthand, typing, and swimming, the teaching of which required special qualifications or experience. These are the only two, strictly limited, exceptions permitted to the broad policy of phasing out of schools by the end of the next summer term all unqualified teachers.

Mr. Marten: What is the meaning of paragraph 12(b) of Circular 15/68? The hon. Lady said that this was done under pressure from the N.U.T. Can the hon. Lady say whether the present Minister, who agreed to this, is a member of the N.U.T., or has ever been?

Miss Lestor: I have no idea about that, so I cannot answer the last question.
I have dealt with the two exceptions to the qualified teacher status, and I think that it is clear to the hon. Member for Banbury that Mrs. Green does not come within the scope of either of the exceptions. I have already said that Mrs. Green has given valuable service. I am very sorry that she finds herself in her present situation, but I am sure that nobody would want to go back on the policy of moving as quickly as we can towards the objective of a fully qualified teaching profession in the schools. This policy has been generally welcomed.
It has been implied by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the agreement among the partners in the education service might have left some loophole which would permit the continued employment of unqualified people like Mrs. Green—people who had given long service and who were exceedingly valuable. It might, but unfortunately the fact is that it did not, and that exception does not exist.
It provides, as I have said, for a two-year transitional phase, during which no new unqualified appointments could be made. Existing unqualified teachers could stay on for two years, but they were informed that they were expected to go at the end of that time. The idea was that during that transitional period unqualified teachers could either set out to improve their qualifications and attain qualified status—a course which, as has been made clear, is not one which one could expect Mrs. Green to embark upon at her age—or to find alternative employment.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Speed: Can the hon. Lady say how many people are in the same category as Mrs. Green or my constituent? Can she give the global figure?

Miss Lestor: I think it is about 3,000. I cannot hold out any hope tonight that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider any modification of existing policy, for which in any event he would have to reopen the agreement already reached with the local authorities and the teachers.
Dealing with the question of unemployment, I would say that with a new policy there are bound to be hard cases and Mrs. Green and the others who have been mentioned are undoubtedly such cases. I do not think my right hon. Friend would regard this, in itself, as a reason for watering down a reform which he is satisfied is highly desirable and which has been welcomed. At no time has Mrs. Green, during her years of service, had security of tenure, as her employment shows. She has been employed longer than many others who have been employed on a temporary basis but many others are also in exactly the same position.
I have been in touch with Oxfordshire Local Education Authority, and I have discussed with them whether they can


offer alternative employment to Mrs. Green in their service. The difficulty is that she has no formal qualification and that she lives in a remote area. If they can offer her anything for which her background and experience have fitted her, they will. They are good employers and have said how much they have valued her service over the years. They are anxious to do what they can within the new rule.

Mr. Hordern: Mr. Hordern rose—

Miss Lestor: If I may, I will continue and give way later. The hon. Member made a point about other professions which have maintained unqualified status and where people have been absorbed or phased out. I do not know a great deal about those other categories and I would not like to pronounce on them or

to say whether they are comparable, but I will report and ensure that the Secretary of State is informed of what has been said tonight. However, in default of any concerted approach from the partners I doubt if he would be prepared to relax his policy.

Mr. Hordern: Will the hon. Lady be good enough to consult West Sussex County Council about Miss Shaw as she has consulted Oxfordshire?

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will seek to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.